Not upheld: Account administration errors complaint against Prestige Finance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

The estate of Mrs C complained about a second charge secured loan held with Prestige Finance Limited, raising multiple issues including the loan term extending past retirement, lack of credit search, property overvaluation, and excessive interest charges. Due to FOS jurisdiction limitations, only the complaint about interest rate fairness since 12 August 2014 could be considered. The ombudsman found the loan agreement clearly stated the interest rate was variable and would track the original lender's base lending rate, and that both the original lender and Prestige applied the terms fairly and consistently. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found the loan agreement clearly stated the interest rate was variable and would track the original lender's base lending rate. The terms were fairly set out and should have been clear to Mrs C when she agreed to the loan. The original lender's BLR did not change between August 2014 and November 2015, so no unfairness occurred during that period. When Prestige took over, switching to the Bank of England base rate was a fair and reasonable benchmark as it is an external, independently-set, published rate. Prestige consistently applied changes to this rate, demonstrating fair treatment throughout the period under consideration.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website