Not upheld: unfair treatment, administrative delays, poor communication, debt recovery procedures complaint against Bank of Ireland (UK) Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Miss E complained that BOI treated her unfairly regarding her buy-to-let mortgage, which was split across two subaccounts and in arrears of approximately £10,000. Her complaints included BOI's instruction of a field agent visit, delay in providing a redemption statement, alleged rude conduct on calls, issuance of a formal demand with threat of receiver appointment, and refusal to communicate by phone. The ombudsman found that each of BOI's actions was reasonable and proportionate given the circumstances: the substantial arrears with no agreed repayment plan, the imminent term end date, and Miss E's lack of cooperation in discussing her situation. While the redemption statement took longer than usual to provide, it caused no proven detriment. The ombudsman upheld BOI's decision to cease phone communication due to Miss E's abusive language toward staff and found that alternative contact methods were provided. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman assessed each complaint element against the circumstances of the case. For the field agent visit, given the arrears of £10,000 with no repayment plan and the imminent term end date, the visit was reasonable and caused no demonstrable detriment. The three-week delay in providing the redemption statement, while longer than expected, caused no proven financial harm or material inconvenience. The balance information provided was accurate and changed appropriately with payments and interest. Call recordings showed staff were professional and not deliberately disconnecting calls. The formal demand was justified given the substantial arrears, considerable time without a repayment plan, and BOI's unsuccessful attempts to engage Miss E on her circumstances. BOI's decision to cease phone communication was reasonable given the heated nature of calls and Miss E's abusive language toward staff, and BOI provided alternative contact methods via email. The ombudsman noted that the unregulated nature of the buy-to-let mortgage meant Consumer Duty did not apply.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website