Not upheld: mis-leading marketing communication / unfair lending decision / complaint handling delay complaint against Bank of Scotland plc trading as Halifax

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs C complained that Halifax mis-led her through an online notification suggesting she would 'likely be approved' for additional borrowing on her mortgage, when the application was subsequently declined. She also complained about the time taken to handle her complaint. The ombudsman found that the online prompt was an early indication, not a guarantee, and that Halifax fairly assessed her application based on affordability and lending criteria. While the complaint should have been logged 3 days earlier, this caused no practical detriment. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The online prompt did not guarantee approval and was merely an early indication based on limited information. Online portals commonly display such prompts which are not binding. Halifax fairly assessed Mrs C's application against their lending criteria including affordability, risk factors and reasons for borrowing, and were entitled to decline it. While the complaint should have been logged on 22 November rather than 25 November (3 days late), this caused no detriment to Mrs C as she was able to bring the complaint to FOS within the appropriate timeframe. The Consumer Duty does not require lenders to lend money or prevent all foreseeable harm, particularly where lending would itself cause harm through unaffordability.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website