Upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Gatehouse Bank Plc
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5780799 of 2025-08-28T00:00:00+00:00. Service failures generally complaint against Gatehouse Bank Plc. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5780799 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2025-08-28T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Gatehouse Bank Plc |
| Product | Mortgage |
| Claim type | Service failures generally |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Refund of application fee and valuation fee totalling £793, plus £150 compensation for distress and inconvenience |
Summary
Mr K and Mrs B complained that Gatehouse Bank Plc sold them a Sharia mortgage without fully informing them about potential tax implications, despite asking about this upfront. They were only told of possible capital gains tax consequences at offer stage, after incurring £793 in non-refundable fees. Concerned about the tax liability, they withdrew from the transaction. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding that Gatehouse, as the professional party aware of these implications, should have disclosed the need for specialist tax advice at the outset to enable an informed decision. Gatehouse was ordered to refund the fees and pay £150 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
Gatehouse has an obligation to communicate clearly, fairly and not misleadingly, and to treat customers fairly. While Gatehouse is not responsible for providing specific tax advice, as the professional party aware of the potential tax implications specific to this structure, it should have informed Mr K and Mrs B upfront that they must seek specialist tax advice before committing. The information was only provided at offer stage, which was too late for an informed decision. Mr K and Mrs B should have been given all available information from the outset.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Gatehouse Bank Plc, all decisions | 10 | 35% |
| Service failures generally, all decisions | 32,767 | 33% |
| Mortgage, all decisions | 24,740 | 22% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website