Not upheld: mortgage term extension refusal and alleged misleading information about complaint process complaint against Bank of Scotland plc trading as Birmingham Midshires

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs B complained that Birmingham Midshires would not extend their mortgage term or allow additional borrowing unless they remortgaged to Bank of Scotland, and that the bank had given misleading information about their options. The ombudsman found that Birmingham Midshires had no legal or regulatory obligation to agree to changes to the mortgage and was not unreasonable in requiring a remortgage. While the bank's explanation of the complaints process was poor, it did not promise that complaining would change the outcome. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Birmingham Midshires had no legal or regulatory obligation to agree to changes to the mortgage and was not unreasonable in requiring a remortgage to Bank of Scotland as its only option for customers. While the bank's explanation of the complaints process was poor, it did not promise that making a complaint would change the outcome, and there was no evidence of incorrect or misleading information about the process for making changes. The ombudsman accepted that Mr and Mrs B were dissatisfied but found no unfair treatment.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website