Partially upheld: failure to provide appropriate support during financial difficulties; failure to explain revaluation option complaint against The Royal Bank of Scotland Public Limited Company
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6281705 of 2026-04-27T00:00:00+00:00. failure to provide appropriate support during financial difficulties; failure to explain revaluation option complaint against The Royal Bank of Scotland Public Limited Company. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6281705 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-27T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | The Royal Bank of Scotland Public Limited Company |
| Product | mortgage |
| Claim type | failure to provide appropriate support during financial difficulties; failure to explain revaluation option |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | RBS must: (1) carry out historic HPI valuation backdated to February 2024 at no charge; (2) if valuation shows facility-to-value ratio would have qualified for lower rate, apply that rate, refund additional interest charged, and pay 8% simple interest on the additional interest; (3) pay £500 compensation for distress and inconvenience; (4) remove historic markers from credit files (excluding August 2025 markers which are subject of separate complaint). |
Summary
Mr and Mrs H complained to RBS about failure to provide support during financial difficulties beginning in October 2019 and alleged mis-selling of their 2007 mortgage. The ombudsman found the mis-selling complaint was out of time and dismissed it. Regarding support, the ombudsman found RBS's only failing was not explaining the property revaluation option in February 2024, but otherwise RBS acted fairly as Mr and Mrs H had minimal engagement with support attempts and specifically rejected certain options. The complaint was partially upheld with RBS ordered to conduct a retrospective HPI valuation, apply any resulting lower rate with refunds and interest, pay £500 compensation, and remove historic credit file markers.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that RBS's primary failing was not explaining the revaluation option when Mr H raised interest rate concerns in February 2024. However, RBS was not required to offer additional support beyond this because: (1) debt consolidation onto the mortgage would not have been appropriate given existing financial difficulties; (2) Mr and Mrs H had minimal engagement with RBS's support attempts between 2019-2023; (3) Mr and Mrs H specifically stated a term extension would not be suitable; and (4) RBS cannot be held responsible for unsecured debts Mr and Mrs H incurred. The ombudsman noted that support requires two-way engagement and Mr and Mrs H needed to provide information about their circumstances for tailored support to be implemented.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| The Royal Bank of Scotland Public Limited Company, all decisions | 17 | 21% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website