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

Decision detail

Summary

Miss C complained that a broker working with Stonebridge Mortgage Solutions Ltd advised her in summer 2021 that she was ineligible for a five year fixed interest rate mortgage, and instead recommended a two year fixed rate. When Miss C's two year rate ended and rates had risen, she refixed at a higher cost and claimed losses. The broker disputed this account, stating that both options were discussed but Miss C preferred the two year product because it was cheaper. A contemporaneous mortgage suitability report documented Miss C's preference for the two year rate, and Miss C did not challenge it at the time despite an explicit invitation to do so. The ombudsman found the documentation and course of events were not out of the ordinary and did not support Miss C's inference that the broker deliberately steered her away from a longer fixed rate for repeat business purposes, and therefore did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the broad course of events and documentation were not out of the ordinary and did not support the inference that the broker deliberately steered Miss C away from a five year fixed rate for repeat business purposes. The mortgage suitability report, as a contemporaneous record of the application, carried considerable weight. Miss C's failure to challenge the report at the time, despite it explicitly inviting her to do so if inaccurate, suggested it accurately reflected the discussions. The ombudsman noted Miss C's account was unclear about whether the eligibility comments related to a Buy To Let or residential mortgage application. On balance, the ombudsman could not conclude it was most likely Miss C requested a five year fixed rate but was told she was ineligible.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website