Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr T and Mrs T complained about HSBC's handling of their buy-to-let mortgage application from August to October 2025, alleging delays, failure to progress the application, missed call backs, and unfair withdrawal. They sought £1,500 compensation plus coverage of increased costs from switching to a more expensive product with another lender. The application was submitted on an execution only basis, requiring Mr T and Mrs T to manage it through HSBC's online portal. Issues included incomplete payslip submission, an incorrect property address in the application, and Mr T and Mrs T's failure to move the application to the required stage for underwriting despite HSBC's prompts and attempted callback. The ombudsman found HSBC acted reasonably throughout, providing adequate support and clear information, and that the withdrawal was justified after months of inactivity. HSBC's offer of £100 for failing to manage expectations about call backs was upheld as fair and reasonable.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that HSBC acted reasonably throughout the application process. The application was execution only, meaning Mr T and Mrs T bore responsibility for managing and progressing it. HSBC provided clear information about this at the outset and offered adequate support including online portal assistance, FAQ pages, live chat, and a dedicated helpline. The payslip issue was resolved appropriately by directing documents to the portal. The wrong address was ultimately Mr T and Mrs T's responsibility to identify and correct, particularly as they should have noticed the discrepancy when the surveyor was instructed to the wrong property in May 2025. HSBC's withdrawal of the application after multiple months of inactivity and failed attempts to contact Mr T and Mrs T was reasonable. HSBC's only failing was not always managing expectations about call backs, which it acknowledged and offered £100 compensation for.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website