Not upheld: treatment during financial difficulty; arrears management; reasonable adjustments; arrears fees; interest charges; data protection complaint against Mortgages Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr J complained about how Mortgages Plc treated him during his period of financial difficulty spanning from 2012 onwards, with arrears accumulating to over £49,000. His complaints covered the interest rate applied since June 2024, support provided since January 2022, being forced to sell his property, lack of reasonable adjustments for vulnerabilities, interest charged on arrears, unauthorized contact with his estate agent, and arrears fees. The ombudsman rejected all complaint points, finding that MP had acted fairly by applying the agreed tracker interest rate, showing substantial forbearance through multiple payment arrangements, and reasonably concluding that Mr J cannot afford the mortgage with no prospect of improvement. The ombudsman determined that property sale was the appropriate outcome given the circumstances and that MP had properly considered Mr J's vulnerabilities while applying contractual terms fairly.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied a fairness and reasonableness test across all complaint points. For the interest rate, the ombudsman found MP correctly applied the agreed tracker rate and had no obligation to offer new products as a closed book lender. For support and the property sale, the ombudsman concluded Mr J cannot afford the mortgage with arrears increasing and no realistic prospect of improvement, making forbearance counterproductive to his interests. For vulnerabilities, the ombudsman found MP had considered them and shown substantial forbearance through multiple payment arrangements. For interest on arrears, the ombudsman found this was standard industry practice and disclosed in terms and conditions. For the estate agent contact, the ombudsman found it reasonable given the arrears level and sale duration, with no personal information disclosed. For arrears fees, the ombudsman found them clearly set out in the tariff, fairly applied, and showing forbearance by not charging since 2022.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website