Not upheld: irresponsible lending and unfair enforcement of possession order complaint against National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company (NatWest)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs P complained that NatWest irresponsibly lent to them on a mortgage taken out in 2001 with further advances in 2002 and 2003, based on overvalued property valuations, resulting in negative equity and an unfair possession order. The ombudsman found no unfairness in the lending because the valuations were not higher than the borrowers' own stated property values and the loan documentation was clear. The ombudsman also clarified that it has no power to intervene in court possession proceedings or order NatWest to suspend enforcement action. The complaint was not upheld, and the ombudsman recommended the borrowers seek independent advice from free advisory services.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found no unfairness in the lending because the 2001 valuation was actually lower than what Mr and Mrs P claimed the property was worth, and the 2002 and 2003 valuations matched the figures provided by Mr and Mrs P themselves. The loan documentation was clear and unambiguous. The ombudsman has no jurisdiction to intervene in court possession proceedings or order NatWest to suspend enforcement action, as this would undermine impartiality and could allow complaints to be used to obstruct legitimate legal remedies.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website