Partially upheld: delays in shortfall sale process and second charge arrangement; service failures complaint against Topaz Finance Limited trading as Jasper Mortgages
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6339042 of 2026-05-07T00:00:00+00:00. delays in shortfall sale process and second charge arrangement; service failures complaint against Topaz Finance Limited trading as Jasper Mortgages. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6339042 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-07T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Topaz Finance Limited trading as Jasper Mortgages |
| Product | mortgage |
| Claim type | delays in shortfall sale process and second charge arrangement; service failures |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | Jasper must refund to Mr and Mrs C the amount of interest charged on their mortgage for the last 12 days before repayment. Jasper must add interest to this sum at 8% simple per annum from the date the mortgage was repaid to the date of settlement. If HM Revenue & Customs requires income tax deduction, Jasper must inform Mr and Mrs C of the amount deducted and provide documentation for tax purposes. |
Summary
Mr and Mrs C complained to Jasper Mortgages about delays in selling their buy-to-let property at a shortfall and arranging a second charge on another rental property to secure the shortfall debt. They also complained about unclear DSAR information, a delayed payment arrangement, and a late redemption statement. The ombudsman found that while Jasper delayed assessing the shortfall application by 12 days beyond its service standards (receiving all information on 4 September 2024 but not approving until 1 October 2024), this delay did not ultimately prevent earlier completion because the second charge process was delayed by Mr and Mrs C's solicitors' failure to promptly obtain the first charge lender's consent (not received until 6 December 2024). The ombudsman rejected complaints about the DSAR format, the January 2024 default letter, and the redemption statement delay. The complaint was partially upheld, requiring Jasper to refund 12 days of mortgage interest plus 8% simple interest from repayment to settlement.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that while Jasper was entitled to require complete information before assessing the shortfall application, it caused a 12-day delay between receiving all required information on 4 September 2024 and approving the application on 1 October 2024. This exceeded Jasper's own service standards. However, the ombudsman found that the delays in the second charge process were primarily caused by Mr and Mrs C's solicitors' failure to promptly request the first charge lender's consent, which was not received until 6 December 2024. The ombudsman rejected claims that Jasper threatened to block the sale, finding it was reasonably reminding Mr and Mrs C that approval had not been granted while awaiting information. The ombudsman also found no fault with the DSAR response format, the January 2024 default letter (which was a reasonable requirement to keep the customer informed), or the redemption statement delay (which did not ultimately delay the sale). The 12-day delay in the shortfall assessment could have allowed the second charge process to start earlier, potentially allowing completion 12 days sooner.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Topaz Finance Limited trading as Jasper Mortgages, all decisions | 3 | 17% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website