Veste

Not upheld: excessive early repayment charge complaint against The Mortgage Works (UK) Plc

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6117508 of 2026-05-11T00:00:00+00:00. excessive early repayment charge complaint against The Mortgage Works (UK) Plc. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6117508
Decision date2026-05-11T00:00:00+00:00
FirmThe Mortgage Works (UK) Plc
Productmortgage
Claim typeexcessive early repayment charge
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNone. The complaint was not upheld.

Summary

Mr Y complained that the 7% early repayment charge on his buy-to-let mortgage with The Mortgage Works was excessive and unfair, arguing it did not represent a reasonable pre-estimate of costs and appeared to include general business overheads. The ombudsman found the ERC was clearly set out in the mortgage offer, which Mr Y agreed to knowingly, and that it represented a reasonable pre-estimate of costs calculated fairly across a tranche of mortgages rather than individually. The ombudsman noted that while Mr Y felt the charge was higher than industry averages, it was reasonable for longer-term products and he was aware of it before taking out the mortgage. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the ERC was clearly disclosed in the mortgage offer and Mr Y agreed to it knowingly. An ERC is not a penalty but rather a reasonable pre-estimate of the lender's costs for early termination. It is reasonable for lenders to calculate ERCs on a tranche basis rather than individually, as it is complex and impossible to predict individual customer behaviour. The ombudsman was satisfied that TMW's calculation was fair and did not include unrelated business overheads. Although Mr Y felt the charge was excessive compared to industry averages, the ombudsman noted that ERCs are typically higher for longer-term products and Mr Y was aware of the charge before agreeing to the mortgage.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
The Mortgage Works (UK) Plc, all decisions33518%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website