Not upheld: charges and fees; early repayment; mortgage exit fee; disclosure of mortgage terms complaint against Selina Finance Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6224335 of 2026-05-27T00:00:00+00:00. charges and fees; early repayment; mortgage exit fee; disclosure of mortgage terms complaint against Selina Finance Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6224335 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-27T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Selina Finance Limited |
| Product | mortgage |
| Claim type | charges and fees; early repayment; mortgage exit fee; disclosure of mortgage terms |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | Selina Finance Limited should pay £100 in full and final settlement of the complaint for poor customer service in relation to the provision of statements and handling of the complaint. |
Summary
Mr W complained that Selina Finance Limited charged him more than it should have when he redeemed his second charge mortgage in 2023, approximately 16 months after taking it out. He claimed he was not informed about an early repayment charge and that the redemption figure behaved like one, requiring him to pay almost the full capital borrowed. He also complained that Selina failed to identify and accommodate his vulnerability. The ombudsman found that responsibility for explaining the mortgage features lay with the mortgage broker, not Selina, and that Selina's mortgage illustration and offer correctly disclosed the terms. The mortgage exit fee was a standard charge that Selina was entitled to charge and of which Mr W was notified. The ombudsman found no evidence of vulnerability that Selina should have identified and upheld only the £100 compensation already offered for poor customer service.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman determined that responsibility for explaining the mortgage features, including how fees were added to the balance and how repayment mortgages work, lay with the mortgage broker, not Selina Finance Limited. Selina's mortgage illustration and offer correctly set out the mortgage terms as required by the Regulator, including confirmation that no ERC would apply. The mortgage exit fee was a standard charge that Selina was entitled to introduce under its terms and conditions, and Mr W was notified in advance. The ombudsman found no evidence that Selina misled Mr W or administered the mortgage improperly. The fact that little capital was repaid in the early years is simply how repayment mortgages function. Regarding vulnerability, Selina had no knowledge of any vulnerabilities and nothing in the records suggested it should have identified any.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Selina Finance Limited, all decisions | 1 | 0% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website