Not upheld: Mortgage administration / arrears handling complaint against Rooftop Mortgages Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs S complained that Rooftop Mortgages Limited acted unfairly in rejecting their proposed reduced payment arrangement for their buy-to-let mortgage and subsequently appointing Law of Property Act Receivers to manage the property. Following interest rate rises in 2023, they proposed paying £500 monthly (less than half the contractual payment) until the property sold after the tenant vacated in January 2024. Rooftop requested financial information to assess the proposal, but Mr and Mrs S provided only general information, citing privacy concerns due to their separation. Mr and Mrs S assumed the lack of immediate response meant implicit acceptance and unilaterally reduced payments, creating arrears that were reported to credit reference agencies. The tenant did not vacate as planned, property marketing was repeatedly delayed, and Mr and Mrs S stopped making payments entirely. After significant arrears accumulated and plans repeatedly failed to materialize, Rooftop appointed LPA Receivers in June 2024. The ombudsman found no unfair treatment, age discrimination, or bullying, concluding that Rooftop reasonably required financial information for affordability assessment and appropriately appointed Receivers given the deteriorating situation and lack of cooperation.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that although Rooftop's initial response to the June 2023 proposal was delayed, Mr and Mrs S were aware that Rooftop required financial information before responding. The ombudsman concluded that Rooftop reasonably required an affordability assessment and that Mr and Mrs S's assumption of implicit acceptance was unreasonable, particularly given Mr S's professional background. The ombudsman found that Rooftop showed considerable forbearance by allowing time for the situation to resolve, but that repeated delays in marketing the property, accumulating arrears, and lack of cooperation with information requests justified the appointment of LPA Receivers. The ombudsman found no evidence of age discrimination, noting that Rooftop's decisions were based on the level of arrears and lack of agreed proposals, not on age. The ombudsman also found that reporting to credit reference agencies was within Rooftop's commercial discretion and did not constitute unfair treatment.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website