Not upheld: Account administration errors complaint against The Mansfield Building Society

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G complained that The Mansfield Building Society unexpectedly demanded an additional £486.83 shortly before his remortgage completion, claiming this was unfair as he had not been warned. The background was that Mansfield's payment collection schedule at the time meant the first full monthly payment was not collected in May 2017 but from June 2017 onwards, resulting in additional interest being charged. In 2018, Mansfield identified this issue and implemented a remediation exercise. The ombudsman found that the £486.83 payment was contractually due and had been disclosed in annual mortgage statements and redemption statements provided to Mr G's solicitor months before completion, so Mr G should have been aware of the higher redemption figure. The ombudsman rejected the complaint, finding that Mansfield had done nothing wrong and that the remediation exercise was a legitimate policy decision, not an admission of liability.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mansfield did not make a mistake in its original payment collection schedule, as it followed the correct process at the time. The £486.83 payment was always contractually due and was disclosed to Mr G through annual mortgage statements and redemption statements provided to his solicitor approximately four months and two months before completion respectively. The ombudsman rejected the argument that this was a sudden demand, as the higher balance had been visible in the mortgage statements and redemption figures all along. Mansfield's remediation exercise was a policy decision to address the extra interest that had accrued, not an admission of liability. The ombudsman noted that if Mr G's solicitor failed to communicate the redemption figures to him, that was a matter between Mr G and his solicitor, not Mansfield's responsibility.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website