Partially upheld: Account administration errors complaint against Mortgage Agency Services Number Two Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr T complained to Verso about fees, charges, and account management relating to a mortgage taken out in his sole name in 1998 over a jointly-owned property. Since 2001, Miss C had been making payments, but Verso refused to accept payments from or discuss the account with her as she was not named on it. The ombudsman found that most fees and charges were properly incurred under the mortgage terms, but upheld the complaint regarding a £228 legal charge that should not have been debited following a December 2016 Reponing Notice where it was agreed no expenses would be due. The ombudsman also accepted Verso's offer of £100 compensation for an erroneous letter stating the account had been transferred. The core complaint about Miss C's exclusion from the account could not be considered as it fell outside FOS jurisdiction.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that most fees and charges were allowable under the mortgage terms and conditions and fairly incurred based on account conduct. However, the £228 legal charge relating to the Reponing Notice should not have been debited as it was agreed that no expenses would be due to either party. The £100 compensation for the erroneous transfer notification was deemed fair. The ombudsman could not consider the core complaint about Miss C not being named on the account as this fell outside the scope of what could be considered under FOS rules, as Miss C was not a customer of Verso.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website