Not upheld: Mortgage advice complaints complaint against Stonebridge Mortgage Solutions Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs M complained that Stonebridge's representative failed to clearly communicate that a re-mortgage with lender A would only provide £16,500 in additional borrowing rather than the requested £20,000. They claimed that had they known this, they would have looked elsewhere for the additional funds. Stonebridge acknowledged the representative should have been clearer and offered £300 compensation. The ombudsman upheld that the representative lacked clarity but found the £300 compensation fair and reasonable, rejecting the claim for the £3,500 shortfall on the grounds that Mr and Mrs M would not have been able to borrow this amount elsewhere given their affordability constraints and the limited number of willing lenders.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman acknowledged that Stonebridge should have been clearer about the additional £20,000 not being available and that Mr and Mrs M lost the opportunity to look elsewhere. However, the ombudsman was not satisfied that Mr and Mrs M would have been able to borrow the additional £3,500 elsewhere given affordability constraints and the limited number of willing lenders. The information from price comparison sites was not binding, and no formal mortgage offer was obtained from the alternative lender. Additionally, even if the additional borrowing had been available, Mr and Mrs M would have struggled to afford the interest payments given their existing financial commitments.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website