Upheld: interest rate dispute and failure to follow up on promised communications complaint against OneSavings Bank Plc trading as Kent Reliance
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6337383 of 2026-06-01T00:00:00+00:00. interest rate dispute and failure to follow up on promised communications complaint against OneSavings Bank Plc trading as Kent Reliance. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6337383 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-01T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | OneSavings Bank Plc trading as Kent Reliance |
| Product | mortgage |
| Claim type | interest rate dispute and failure to follow up on promised communications |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Kent Reliance must: (1) Contact Mrs B within two weeks to discuss rates available in February 2024; (2) Retrospectively apply Mr and Mrs B's chosen interest rate to their mortgage account; (3) Use resulting overpayments to reduce the mortgage balance; (4) If a two-year rate is chosen, allow selection of a new rate at its end date; (5) Provide clear written confirmation of new monthly payment, current interest rate product, end date, and new mortgage balance; (6) Pay total compensation of £450 for distress and inconvenience. |
Summary
Mr and Mrs B complained that Kent Reliance charged them a higher interest rate on their mortgage than agreed when extending their term in February 2024. They believed the 3.24% fixed rate would continue until 2030, but the mortgage reverted to SVR in May 2024 as stated in the original documentation. Although Kent Reliance's communications could have been clearer and it failed to follow up on promised callbacks, the ombudsman found the documentation was explicit about the rate reversion. The ombudsman upheld the complaint and ordered Kent Reliance to allow Mr and Mrs B to retrospectively select and apply an interest rate product from those available in May 2024, backdate it, adjust the mortgage balance, and pay £450 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that the documentation from the time of the term extension clearly stated the fixed rate was only for 4 months and would revert to SVR, not that the 3.24% rate would continue for the full term until 2030. While the confirmation letter could have been clearer, the offer document and ESIS were explicit about the rate reversion. The ombudsman acknowledged Mr and Mrs B's difficult circumstances but determined that Kent Reliance should not extend an interest rate product that is no longer available. However, Kent Reliance caused confusion and failed to follow up promised conversations, justifying redress through allowing retrospective selection of a rate that would have been available in May 2024.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| OneSavings Bank Plc trading as Kent Reliance, all decisions | 1 | 100% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website