Not upheld: mortgage administration, enforcement action, alleged discrimination, vulnerability considerations complaint against Topaz Finance Limited trading as Jasper Mortgages

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs I complained that Jasper Mortgages mismanaged their buy-to-let mortgage, rejected their repayment proposals, inappropriately appointed receivers and took legal action, prevented them from letting the property, and discriminated against them based on age without making reasonable adjustments for their vulnerability. The mortgage, originally taken in 2007 for £116,025 over 15 years, was not repaid when the term ended in 2022, placing them in breach of contract. Between 2021 and 2025, they made six restructuring proposals, with the final proposals in early 2025 involving a managed sale or transfer to a limited company. The ombudsman found that Jasper was contractually entitled to require full repayment, exercised considerable forbearance by delaying possession until 2025, and was not obliged to accept proposals that did not repay the debt in full. The ombudsman rejected discrimination claims, finding that the disadvantage from negative equity affected all borrowers regardless of age, and found no evidence that Jasper failed to make reasonable adjustments for their vulnerability.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Jasper was entitled to require full repayment of the debt as agreed in the mortgage contract. The mortgage term had ended in 2022 without repayment, placing Mr and Mrs I in breach of contract. Jasper exercised considerable forbearance by not taking possession until 2025. The proposals made by Mr and Mrs I were not viable as they did not demonstrate ability to repay the debt in full, including any shortfall. Jasper was not contractually or legally obliged to accept restructuring or term extensions. The disadvantage suffered by Mr and Mrs I (negative equity) was not age-related discrimination but a consequence of property market conditions affecting all borrowers similarly. No evidence supported that Jasper failed to make reasonable adjustments for their vulnerability.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website