Not upheld: irresponsible lending / poor mortgage advice / procedural failures / vulnerability complaint against Woods & Wallace Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs A complained to the Financial Ombudsman about mortgage advice from Woods & Wallace Ltd, claiming the firm recommended a two-year fixed rate when they wanted a five-year rate, failed to deliver a suitability report, made data breaches with incorrect email addresses, and proceeded with the application despite Mrs A's vulnerable position following childbirth. The ombudsman found that the available evidence showed Mr and Mrs A had told Woods & Wallace they preferred a shorter two-year term to review options without early repayment charges, and they were made aware of the two-year rate through multiple communications. The recommended mortgage was financially cheaper over 26 months than alternatives despite early repayment charges. Regarding vulnerability, Woods & Wallace could not reasonably have known Mr and Mrs A expected the application to pause when Mrs A went into labour, and the application had already been submitted before labour began. The complaint was not upheld and no compensation was awarded.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the available evidence showed Mr and Mrs A told Woods & Wallace they wanted a two-year rate, not a five-year rate as they later claimed. They were made aware of the two-year rate on multiple occasions through the mortgage illustration, emails, and solicitor correspondence. The two-year rate recommendation was consistent with their stated preference to review options in 2 years and keep monthly payments low. Even if an error had occurred, the two-year rate was financially cheaper over 26 months than the alternative of porting their existing mortgage, so Mr and Mrs A were not worse off. Regarding vulnerability, Woods & Wallace could not reasonably have known Mr and Mrs A expected the application to pause when Mrs A went into labour, and the application had already been submitted before labour began. The mortgage did not complete until mid-September, giving Mr and Mrs A time to consider the offer. Regarding procedural failures, while Woods & Wallace failed to send emails to Mr A and did not ensure delivery of the suitability letter, Mrs A received sufficient information about the two-year rate through multiple channels.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website