Not upheld: delay in implementing ombudsman directions; delay in credit file amendments; failure to prevent financial loss from delayed second charge borrowing complaint against Kensington Mortgage Company Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6310885 of 2026-06-01T00:00:00+00:00. delay in implementing ombudsman directions; delay in credit file amendments; failure to prevent financial loss from delayed second charge borrowing complaint against Kensington Mortgage Company Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6310885 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-01T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Kensington Mortgage Company Limited |
| Product | mortgage |
| Claim type | delay in implementing ombudsman directions; delay in credit file amendments; failure to prevent financial loss from delayed second charge borrowing |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No additional remedy ordered. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint and did not require KM to provide further compensation beyond what had already been offered (£4,000) and paid (£500, £6,690.56 in waived payments, and £18,000 refund). |
Summary
Mr T complained that Kensington Mortgage Company Limited unreasonably delayed implementing a previous ombudsman's directions issued on 7 January 2025, which required reworking his mortgage account and amending his credit file from 1 March 2024. Mr T claimed the delays prevented him from obtaining fairer lending rates for a second charge loan and caused unsafe home conditions while he lacked funds for essential repairs. KM had offered £4,000 in compensation. The ombudsman found that Mr T made significant repair payments before the account was reworked in May 2025, indicating the delay did not prevent repairs, and that the waiving of mortgage payments during the delay provided adequate compensation. Regarding credit file amendments, the ombudsman found KM instructed the credit reference agencies in June 2025 and that other adverse information on Mr T's credit report meant the KM-related adverse information was unlikely to have been the sole reason for missing out on better rates. The complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that while KM delayed implementing the previous ombudsman's directions, the evidence did not support Mr T's claims of causation. Regarding home repairs, Mr T made significant payments before the account was reworked in May 2025, indicating the delay did not prevent him from carrying out repairs. The waiving of mortgage payments during the delay period provided adequate compensation for distress caused. Regarding credit file amendments, KM fulfilled its responsibility by instructing CRAs in June 2025, with CRAs responsible for making the actual amendments. The ombudsman was not persuaded that the delay in removing adverse KM information caused Mr T to miss out on better lending rates, given the substantial other adverse information on his credit report.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Kensington Mortgage Company Limited, all decisions | 298 | 26% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website