Not upheld: irresponsible lending, mis-selling, unfair charges, account administration, complaint handling complaint against Intrum Mortgages UK Finance Limited (formerly Mars)

Decision detail

Summary

Ms A complained about her second charge secured loan with Intrum (formerly Mars) taken out in October 2007 for £28,000 on an interest-only basis at 7.75% above base rate. The loan term ended in October 2017 but the balance remained unpaid. Ms A raised multiple complaints including that the loan was mis-sold as interest-only, her name change requests were ignored, the interest rate was not varied correctly between May 2019 and September 2023, and Intrum charged interest after the loan term ended. The ombudsman found the loan was unregulated so consumer credit rules did not apply, the mortgage broker was responsible for suitability, Ms A failed to provide required certified documentation for name changes despite multiple requests, the interest rate failure resulted in no financial loss to Ms A as rates should have been higher, and the contract permitted post-term interest charges. The ombudsman concluded Intrum showed substantial forbearance by not pursuing repossession despite years of arrears and rejected all complaints.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that: (1) the loan was unregulated so CONC did not apply; (2) the mortgage broker, not the original lender, was responsible for suitability and the loan agreement clearly stated it was interest-only; (3) Intrum reasonably required certified documentation for name change and there was no evidence it was received despite Ms A's claims; (4) Intrum was not obligated to obtain pre-transfer information from previous lenders under data protection law; (5) although the interest rate did not vary from May 2019-September 2023, Ms A was financially better off as the rate should have been higher during the rising rate period, so she suffered no loss; (6) the contract clearly permitted interest charges on unpaid balances after the loan term ended; (7) Intrum showed substantial forbearance by not pursuing repossession despite the loan being years overdue and multiple missed payments; (8) the field agent visit was appropriate given Ms A's failure to return required documentation; (9) the complaint handling breach had no material impact as Ms A was promptly informed of referral rights and referred to FOS without delay.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website