Managing Deceased Estates Decision Reference 2022-0122

• Case Outcome: Substantially upheld
• Subject Matter: Managing Deceased Estates
• Reference: 2022-0122
• Date: 07 April 2022
• Finantial Sector: Banking
• Conducts Complained Of: Failure to process instructions in a timely manner,Complaint handling (Consumer Protection Code) , Delayed or inadequate communication, Dissatisfaction with customer service , Maladministration

Decision Ref:

2022-0122

Sector:

Banking

Product / Service:

Managing Deceased Estates

Conduct(s) complained of:

Failure to process instructions in a timely manner

Delayed or inadequate communication

Complaint handling (Consumer Protection Code)

Dissatisfaction with customer service

Maladministration

Outcome:

Substantially upheld

LEGALLY BINDING DECISION OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN

The complaint concerns a mortgage loan account and the consent for sale requests in

respect of two secured properties.

The complaint is made by the Executors of the estate of the mortgage loan account holder

(“the Borrower”) who died in late 2010. The Executors are referred to below as “the

Complainants”.

The Complainants’ Case

In their Complaint Form, the Complainants state that the Provider failed to process, in a

timely and efficient manner, applications for the Provider’s consent to the sale of two

properties located in Dublin, Property 1 and Property 2 (together, “the Properties”).

In resolution of this complaint, the Complainants are seeking “financial compensation”.

The Provider’s Case

- 2 -

/Cont’d…

The Provider says this complaint relates to a Buy-to-Let (“BTL”) mortgage loan which was

sanctioned in the name of the Borrower and drawn down on 23 June 2006. The Provider

says the loan was for €500,000.00 and the purpose was to release equity from the securities

held (listed below) for the purchase of two apartments in Paris.

The Provider says the loan was drawn down over a 10 year term including a capital

repayment moratorium for the first 60 months. After the expiry of the 60 months in 2011,

the Provider says repayments were to revert to full capital and interest repayments. When

the Provider replied to the formal investigation of this complaint in July 2020, the balance

on the account as at 23 July 2020 was €487,493.24dr. Responding to this complaint the

Provider said that repayments of €500.00 per month were being made to the account.

When the loan was drawn down, the Provider says the security for the loan consisted of:

• A first legal mortgage over Property 1

• A first legal mortgage over Property 2

• A first legal mortgage over Property 3

• An extension of the Provider’s first legal mortgage over:

Property 4

Property 5

Property 6

Property 7

Property 8

Property 9

The Provider says it is relying on the following documentation provided to the Borrower

when the loan facility was sanctioned:

1. Letter of Loan Offer dated 3 March 2006

2. Standard Commercial Loan Conditions applicable to the Letter of Loan Offer

The Provider says the above documents do not contain any specific reference to ‘consent to

sale’ requests. In a submission dated 16 December 2020, the Provider said that in addition

to the above documentation, it is also relying upon ‘The General Conditions for [Provider]

Home Loans’ dated 4 January 2006.

The Provider has set out a timeline of events for the period from 1 June 2018 (when an email

was received from the Complainants’ solicitor requesting consent to sell Property 1) and 26

April 2019 (when Case Manager 2 emailed the Complainants’ solicitor to advise that a

consent to sale letter had issued in respect of Property 1).