Not upheld: mortgage term extension refusal; unfair treatment claims; communication and information provision; interest charging; credit reporting complaint against Barclays Bank PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs and Mr G held a mortgage with Barclays comprising a main mortgage, offset savings account, and mortgage current account (MCA) with secured overdraft. The mortgage was due for repayment in June 2025, but Mrs and Mr G had invested their assets at 120 days' notice, believing they had another year. After Barclays declined their request for a term extension and initiated legal action, they complained to the Financial Ombudsman Service, seeking confirmation of a twelve-month extension, interest freeze on the MCA, removal of adverse credit entries, compensation, and an apology. The ombudsman found that Barclays was entitled to assess the extension request under lending criteria and MCOB affordability requirements, did not agree to the extension in the telephone conversation, and acted fairly in declining the request and pursuing recovery action. The complaint was not upheld, and no remedy was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Mortgage Market Review (MMR) regulations and MCOB rules to determine that Barclays was entitled to require an affordability assessment for a term extension where the existing term had expired, as this constitutes a material change to the mortgage. The ombudsman found that Mr G's recollection of the 9 July 2025 call was inaccurate; the call ended with Barclays agreeing to consider the request at senior level subject to evidence, not agreeing to the extension. The ombudsman noted that Mrs and Mr G had the financial means to repay the mortgage when due and chose not to do so. The ombudsman found no unfair treatment by Barclays in declining the extension request, initiating recovery action after unsuccessful contact attempts, or charging the contractual variable interest rate on the MCA. The ombudsman rejected claims regarding communication preferences, credit reporting, and compensation as either not substantiated or not warranting redress given the overall fairness of Barclays' conduct.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website