Not upheld: Unknown / needs review complaint against Lenvi Servicing Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs M complained that the terms of their help to buy shared equity loan were unfair, specifically objecting to the requirement to repay a percentage of the property's value rather than a fixed sum, the need for professional valuations and admin fees, and the charging of interest. The ombudsman found that the lender is an unregulated government agency outside FOS jurisdiction, while Lenvi is the regulated administrator. The ombudsman could only assess whether Lenvi administered the loan fairly according to its terms, not whether the terms themselves were fair. Finding that Lenvi correctly explained the terms and administered the loan in accordance with them, the ombudsman did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman determined that while Lenvi is regulated and falls within FOS jurisdiction, the complaint concerns the fairness of the loan terms themselves, which is a matter for the unregulated government lender, not the administrator. The ombudsman could only assess whether Lenvi administered the loan fairly according to its terms. The terms and conditions were clear and agreed to by Mr and Mrs M at the time of borrowing. As a shared equity loan, the repayment structure necessarily requires a percentage-based calculation rather than fixed repayment, necessitating professional valuation. Lenvi has correctly explained the terms and collected interest in accordance with the loan agreement. Therefore, Lenvi has acted fairly and reasonably.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website