Not upheld: Account administration errors complaint against Swift 1st Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Ms W complained about Swift Advances' administration of a secured second charge loan taken out in 2006, which was subsequently refinanced twice, with the final loan in 2007 being in joint names with her ex-partner. She raised multiple complaints including alleged collusion, unfair payments, incorrect payment records, and the 2016 possession order. The ombudsman found that most complaints fell outside jurisdiction as they were referred too late, including the original loan sale and ex-partner addition. For the matters within jurisdiction—payment disputes, correspondence addressing, and term-end clarity—the ombudsman found Swift Advances had not acted unfairly or unreasonably, though it recommended Swift Advances address letters to Ms W alone when dealing with her individually.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied strict jurisdiction rules, excluding complaints about loan sales, ex-partner addition, and legal action as they were referred outside time limits. For the matters within jurisdiction, the ombudsman found Swift Advances had acted reasonably: the payment shortfall calculation appeared accurate based on available evidence; not removing the ex-partner from the joint loan was reasonable as it required his consent and might not be in Ms W's best interests; sending joint correspondence was reasonable for an account in joint names, though Swift Advances should address letters to Ms W alone when dealing with her individually; and Swift Advances had clearly communicated its intentions regarding the loan term end.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website