Not upheld: mortgage porting denial and early repayment charges complaint against Clydesdale Bank Plc trading as Virgin Money

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B and Mrs B complained that Clydesdale Bank Plc trading as Virgin Money unfairly declined to port their three mortgages when they relocated and applied early repayment charges when two properties were sold. Mr B claimed they were misled about porting availability and believed their mortgages had transferred to Virgin Money, which does operate in their new area. The ombudsman found that mortgage illustrations clearly stated porting was conditional on meeting Clydesdale's lending criteria, and Clydesdale does not offer mortgages in the relocated area. The ombudsman concluded Clydesdale did not mislead them, as all documentation was issued by Clydesdale (not Virgin Money) and the firm provided correct information about porting restrictions and ERC consequences in advance. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the mortgage illustrations clearly stated porting was conditional on meeting Clydesdale's lending criteria at the time of application. Clydesdale does not offer mortgages in the area Mr B relocated to, so a porting application would not meet its lending criteria. The ombudsman was not persuaded that Clydesdale misled Mr B and Mrs B about porting eligibility or that their mortgages had transferred to Virgin Money. Virgin Money was merely a trade name used by Clydesdale, and all product documentation was issued by Clydesdale, not Virgin Money. Clydesdale provided Mr B with correct information about the porting restrictions and ERC consequences well in advance of the property sales, allowing Mr B and Mrs B to make an informed decision.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website