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

Decision detail

Summary

Mr C complained that Stonebridge Mortgage Solutions provided unsuitable advice by recommending a joint mortgage with his ex-partner Mrs C, resulting in her being added to the property title against his wishes. Mr C claimed he had expressly requested the property remain in his sole name and that documents were not explained to him. He also alleged the mortgage adviser had an undisclosed prior relationship with Mrs C constituting a conflict of interest. The ombudsman found that the evidence demonstrated Mr C was aware of the joint mortgage arrangement from the beginning, including the enquiry form noting 'plus transfer equity', both parties' participation in meetings, and all documentation being addressed to both. No evidence of a prior relationship or conflict of interest was found. The ombudsman concluded that responsibility for explaining the TR1 transfer form lay with the conveyancing solicitors, not Stonebridge, and that Mr C could have sought clarification if unsure about the legal documents.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the evidence demonstrates Mr C was aware the mortgage was in joint names from the outset. The enquiry form noted 'plus transfer equity', both parties attended meetings, both provided financial information, and all documentation was addressed to both. The ombudsman found no evidence of a conflict of interest, noting the adviser stated she met the couple for the first time during the mortgage advice process. The ombudsman concluded that once the mortgage offer was issued, the conveyancing solicitors took over, and it was their responsibility to explain the TR1 form. The ombudsman noted that if Mr C was unsure about the consequences of signing legal documents, he could have sought clarification or separate legal advice. The ombudsman also noted that even if Stonebridge had made an error, this would not necessarily mean the settlement Mr C paid during separation was caused by that error.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website