Not upheld: Account administration errors complaint against The Mansfield Building Society

Decision detail

Summary

Ms B died in 2019 as a joint mortgagor with G on a property held as joint tenants. Following her death, the mortgage passed to G alone, but the property remained jointly owned. Mr A, representing Ms B's estate, requested detailed mortgage information from Mansfield Building Society to assist with probate, but Mansfield refused to provide it directly and insisted on sending it to nominated solicitors, resulting in legal costs for the estate. The ombudsman found that Mansfield acted fairly in this approach, as it could only disclose information about its customer (G) with his consent, which he had not given, and that seeking legal advice on how to balance the estate's needs with G's privacy rights was sensible and reasonable.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman reasoned that although the estate had a legitimate interest in knowing about the mortgage (as it was secured over the estate's share of the property), Mansfield could only disclose information about its customer with that customer's consent. G did not consent. The ombudsman found it reasonable for Mansfield to seek legal advice on balancing the estate's needs with G's privacy rights, and that the advice to use nominated solicitors was sensible and fair. While the resulting legal costs were unfortunate, they were not unfair given the circumstances and the likelihood that legal input would be needed anyway to resolve the equity and trust position.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website