Not upheld: unfair charges - addition of legal fees to mortgage account complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6313629 of 2026-04-23T00:00:00+00:00. unfair charges - addition of legal fees to mortgage account complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6313629 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-23T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Barclays Bank UK PLC |
| Product | mortgage |
| Claim type | unfair charges - addition of legal fees to mortgage account |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. The ombudsman declined to order removal of the legal costs and noted that Mr M could raise the issue of costs with the court at the hearing on 28 April 2026, though the judge would need a compelling reason to override the contractual provisions. |
Summary
Mr and Mrs M complained that Barclays unfairly added legal fees to their interest-only mortgage account from March 2025 to December 2025, claiming the bank had mishandled a payment proposal. The mortgage had ended in 2020 with an outstanding balance, and Barclays initiated legal action to recover the debt. The ombudsman found that the addition of legal costs was contractually permitted and consistent with industry practice. Although Mr M had requested extensions and mentioned having pension funds to repay the mortgage, he had not provided a concrete repayment plan despite the mortgage being over five years past its repayment date. The ombudsman concluded it was reasonable for Barclays to proceed with legal action and therefore did not uphold the complaint.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Barclays was contractually permitted to add legal costs and that it is normal industry practice for borrowers to pay lender's debt recovery costs. The ombudsman considered the account history and found it was reasonable for Barclays to proceed with legal action given that the mortgage was over five years past its repayment date, Mr M had repeatedly requested extensions without providing a concrete repayment plan, and there was no evidence of how the remaining balance would be paid off in full. The ombudsman noted that while Mr M had made a partial redemption, he had not demonstrated a clear strategy to repay the outstanding balance.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Barclays Bank UK PLC, all decisions | 11,165 | 22% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website