Not upheld: mortgage administration, alleged misrepresentation regarding court proceedings adjournment, alleged misleading information about evidence requirements, alleged inappropriate call handling complaint against Mortgages 1 Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr I and Mrs C complained to Mortgages 1 about their interest-only mortgage, with complaints submitted in October 2024 and January 2025. The January 2025 complaint (the only one considered in this decision) alleged they were misled about court proceedings adjournment conditions, evidence requirements, and call handler conduct during discussions about refinancing and a lump-sum payment to avoid possession. The ombudsman found that Mortgages 1 clearly communicated that any evidence would require senior team review without guarantees, and that the firm acted reasonably by adjourning the court hearing once an agreement in principle was provided. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint, noting that the call handler did not speak inappropriately and that complaints about impact on Mrs B could not be considered as she was not a customer.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the call handler clearly stated in the 18 December call that any evidence would need to be referred to the senior team with no guarantees of adjournment. Once evidence was provided, the senior team agreed to adjourn the hearing. The ombudsman noted it is standard practice for lenders to only put proceedings on hold once a formal mortgage offer is provided, as an agreement in principle does not prove an application would be successful. The ombudsman found Mortgages 1 did not mislead Mrs B and the call handler did not speak inappropriately. Additionally, the ombudsman noted that Mrs B and other family members were not Mortgages 1 customers and therefore not eligible for complaint consideration under FOS rules.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website