Not upheld: Account administration errors complaint against Prestige Finance Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5728858 of 2025-09-23T00:00:00+00:00. Account administration errors complaint against Prestige Finance Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5728858 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2025-09-23T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Prestige Finance Limited |
| Product | Mortgage |
| Claim type | Account administration errors |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint was not upheld. The ombudsman noted that Prestige should provide Mr T with any other information he requests about the loan, either by sending it or explaining why it cannot do so. Mr T was advised to raise separately with Prestige any questions about the February 2022 sustainability review refund, and may make a fresh complaint if unhappy with Prestige's response. |
Summary
Mr T complained that Prestige Finance Limited was demanding payment of fees and charges on his second charge secured loan after the 20-year term ended in August 2024, and had not satisfactorily explained how this balance arose. Fees and charges had been added to the loan between 2005-2007 when payments were missed, and remained outstanding accruing interest. The ombudsman found these fees were properly added under the loan terms and clearly disclosed on statements sent to Mr T at the time. Although the complaint about the fees themselves fell outside the time limits, the ombudsman examined whether the overall treatment resulted in unfairness. The ombudsman concluded that Mr T had sufficient information from statements and from Prestige's correspondence in late 2017/early 2018 to understand the situation, and had the opportunity to mitigate any unfairness by increasing payments or seeking alternatives. The complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that fees and charges were properly added to the loan under the terms and conditions when payments were missed, and were clearly disclosed on statements sent to Mr T at the time. Although the complaint about the fees themselves fell outside the time limits for consideration, the ombudsman examined whether the treatment over the years resulted in unfairness. The ombudsman concluded that Mr T had sufficient information from statements to realise there was an outstanding fees balance, and this was confirmed in his correspondence with Prestige in late 2017/early 2018. Prestige clearly informed Mr T that he would need to increase payments to repay within the original term, giving him the opportunity to mitigate any unfairness by increasing payments, seeking alternative options, or making a complaint. The ombudsman found no lasting unfairness warranting refund of the fees and charges.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Prestige Finance Limited, all decisions | 46 | 14% |
| Account administration errors, all decisions | 25,844 | 25% |
| Mortgage, all decisions | 24,740 | 22% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website