Upheld: service delays and poor administration of mortgage application complaint against Lenvi Servicing Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6372163 of 2026-06-15T00:00:00+00:00. service delays and poor administration of mortgage application complaint against Lenvi Servicing Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6372163 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-15T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Lenvi Servicing Limited |
| Product | Mortgage |
| Claim type | service delays and poor administration of mortgage application |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Lenvi Servicing Limited directed to pay Miss S £1,000 compensation for distress and inconvenience. (Lenvi had already refunded the £115 application fee.) |
Summary
Miss S applied in early 2023 to transfer her help to buy shared equity mortgage from joint names with her former partner to her sole name, intending to remortgage simultaneously. When Lenvi took over administration in June 2023, the application was inherited but remained outstanding with significant delays throughout 2023 and 2024. Despite repeated chasing by Miss S's solicitors, Lenvi took long periods of inaction, made piecemeal requests for information, and ultimately rejected the application in September 2024 due to mortgage balance concerns. After 18 months of frustration, Miss S abandoned the application and instead obtained a higher mortgage from a new lender to redeem the help to buy loan in full, incurring an early repayment charge and other costs. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding Lenvi caused substantial delays and distress, but concluded Miss S was not overall worse off financially from redeeming the loan, and awarded £1,000 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Lenvi caused substantial and unreasonable delays over more than a year, with long periods of inaction and failure to respond substantively to repeated chasing. While Lenvi had some legitimate concerns about document requirements (particularly regarding the mortgage balance), these should have been raised promptly and comprehensively at the outset rather than piecemeal after repeated delays. The ombudsman rejected Lenvi's argument that Miss S's solicitors were also responsible for delays, finding Lenvi was the primary cause. Regarding financial losses, the ombudsman concluded that while Miss S incurred costs (ERC, legal fees, broker fees), she was not overall worse off from redeeming the help to buy loan because she now has a single lender, all borrowing on repayment terms, and the help to buy debt crystallised and won't increase. However, the substantial distress and inconvenience over a sustained period warranted compensation of £1,000.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Lenvi Servicing Limited, all decisions | 28 | 48% |
| Mortgage, all decisions | 25,098 | 22% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website