Not upheld: conduct of litigation proceedings, failure to hold action, provision of incorrect information, solicitor's failure to attend court hearing complaint against The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6009869 of 2026-04-17T00:00:00+00:00. conduct of litigation proceedings, failure to hold action, provision of incorrect information, solicitor's failure to attend court hearing complaint against The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6009869 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-17T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC |
| Product | Mortgage |
| Claim type | conduct of litigation proceedings, failure to hold action, provision of incorrect information, solicitor's failure to attend court hearing |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | RBS has already: (1) paid £75 compensation for incorrect information about FOS contact; (2) paid £350 compensation for delay in holding action; (3) paid £500 compensation for the missed court hearing; (4) refunded legal costs of approximately £1,600; (5) confirmed no legal fees would be applied while recovery action is on hold; (6) offered to consider Mr and Mrs S's additional costs (solicitors costs, hearing preparation, time off work) if evidence provided. |
Summary
Mr and Mrs S complained about RBS's conduct of mortgage possession litigation, alleging unfair treatment, breach of court protocols, and failure to hold action after bringing a complaint to FOS. RBS admitted multiple errors including incorrectly stating it had no FOS contact, delaying the action hold, and its solicitors failing to attend a scheduled June 2025 court hearing due to misfiling. RBS remedied the issues by paying £925 in compensation, refunding £1,600 in legal costs, and confirming action would remain on hold. The ombudsman found no material litigation prejudice resulted from these errors and determined the compensation and remedies already provided were fair and reasonable, declining to uphold the complaint.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that while RBS made several errors in conducting the litigation (providing incorrect information about FOS contact, failing to immediately hold action, and the solicitors' failure to attend the scheduled hearing), these errors did not cause material litigation prejudice. The 12-month delay while action was on hold actually gave Mr and Mrs S more time to arrange repayment, and there was nothing preventing them from refinancing or selling during this period. The underlying anxiety was largely due to the mortgage situation itself (expired term with unpaid balance) rather than RBS's errors. The compensation already paid (£925) and refund of legal costs (£1,600) were considered fair and reasonable for the inconvenience and worry caused by the specific errors.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC, all decisions | 6,054 | 23% |
| Mortgage, all decisions | 25,098 | 22% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website