Not upheld: Other regulated complaint complaint against United Trust Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

BR, a company directed by Mr B, complained to the FOS about a commercial loan from UTB taken out in 2022 to fund a building project. Mr B alleged that UTB withheld approximately £0.25m without his knowledge or consent and that the monitoring surveyor appointed by UTB unnecessarily delayed fund drawdowns, causing project delays and additional costs. The ombudsman found that the loan terms, including the role of the monitoring surveyor and the mechanism for releasing funds, were adequately communicated to BR through UTB's February 2022 offer and the broker's suitability letter. The ombudsman determined that UTB was entitled to rely on the independent monitoring surveyor's professional recommendations and had no jurisdiction to assess the surveyor's conduct. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied an objective, impartial approach focused on whether UTB acted fairly rather than second-guessing its commercial judgment. The key finding was that the terms and conditions of the lending facility, including the role of the monitoring surveyor and the mechanism for fund release, were adequately communicated to BR through the February 2022 offer and the broker's suitability letter. The ombudsman found that BR, having engaged a professional broker, should have understood these terms. Regarding the monitoring surveyor's role, the ombudsman drew an analogy to standard mortgage valuation practice, finding that UTB was entitled to instruct an independent professional and rely on his recommendations. Since Mr V was not an employee or agent of UTB but an independent surveyor outside the ombudsman's jurisdiction, the ombudsman could not assess whether his recommendations were reasonable or whether he caused undue delay. The ombudsman confined its review to UTB's own conduct and found it acted reasonably and without undue delay in relying on Mr V's professional opinions.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website