Repayment Mortgage Decision Reference 2022-0001

• Case Outcome: Substantially upheld
• Subject Matter: Repayment Mortgage
• Reference: 2022-0001
• Date: 05 January 2022
• Conducts Complained Of: Maladministration (mortgage),Complaint handling (Consumer Protection Code) , Delayed or inadequate communication, Disputed transactions, Dissatisfaction with customer service , Failure to process instructions, Failure to process instructions in a timely
• Finantial Sector: Banking

Decision Ref:

2022-0001

Sector:

Banking

Product / Service:

Repayment Mortgage

Conduct(s) complained of:

Maladministration (mortgage)

Delayed or inadequate communication

Level of contact or communications re. Arrears

Complaint handling (Consumer Protection Code)

Dissatisfaction with customer service

Disputed transactions

Failure to process instructions in a timely manner

Failure to process instructions

Maladministration

Maladministration (mortgage)

Outcome:

Substantially upheld

LEGALLY BINDING DECISION

OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN

The complaint concerns the administration of the Complainants’ loan accounts by the

Provider and its appointed Asset Service Provider.

The Complainants’ Case

In their Complaint Form, the Complainants state that on 6 December 2017, a complaint

was submitted to the Asset Service Provider by registered post and was received on 6

December 2017. The Complainants state that at the time of completing their Complaint

Form, 40 business days had passed since the complaint was submitted to the Asset Service

Provider and the Complainants had still not received an acknowledgement of their

complaint.

- 2 -

/Cont’d…

The Complainants submit that this is clearly in breach of the Asset Service Provider’s

complaints procedure which states that it would respond to a complaint within five

working days of receiving it and would respond with the outcome of its investigation

within four weeks. The Complainants further submit that section 2.8 of the Consumer

Protection Code 2012 states that a regulated entity must correct errors and handle

complaints speedily, efficiently and fairly. The Complainants contend that the Provider is

clearly ignoring this process.

In a letter of complaint to the Asset Service Provider dated 5 December 2017, the First

Complainant states, as follows:

“I wish to submit a formal complaint to [the Asset Service Provider] for

unauthorised Contact with a Third party, breaches of confidentiality under the Data

Protection Act by sending account information to the wrong address, Possible

breach of AML & breach of Central Bank’s Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears

and the Consumer Protection Code.

1. Breach of confidentiality & Unauthorised Contact with our Daughters business

Accountants […] by a [Asset Service Provider] senior mortgage executive

On the 6th September 2017, the managing partner of our daughter’s business

accountants […] received a call from [the Asset Service Provider] wanting to discuss

the financial details of our 3 above Buy to Let Mortgages. [The Accounting Firm] is

our daughter’s company accountants & are not involved in our personal borrowings

since April 2014. I instructed [the Managing Partner, ‘DG’] to inform [the Asset

Service Provider] to call me directly. On the 7th September 2017 at 10.46 am, [an

Asset Service Provider agent], whose title was senior mortgage executive from [the

Asset Service Provider] rang me. Our conversation lasted 6 minutes & 26 seconds. I

asked [the Senior Mortgage Executive] to clarify who had instructed [the Asset

Service Provider] to ring my business accountants […]. She informed me that [the

Asset Service Provider] was acting on instructions from [the Provider]. I explained

to her that that (sic) I had 3 letters from [the Provider] dated 3rd May 2017

authorising [the Complainants’ Financial Adviser] to be our 3rd party contact with

[the Provider].

[The Provider] clearly state on the Banks third party mandate section 2 that any

existing third party signatories on our accounts will be received on acceptance of

this new authority.

Why wasn’t [DG’s] authority removed upon receipt of [the Financial Adviser’s]

new authority? […]

- 3 -

/Cont’d…

(2) Contravention of [the Provider’s] Acknowledgement of [the Financial Adviser]

as the Third Party dated 3 May 2017

[The Financial Adviser] was the only person authorised to discuss all our financial

dealings with [the Provider] & by default, [the Asset Service Provider] on the

transfer instruction of [the Provider] I informed [the Senior Mortgage Executive]

that this was a breach of confidentiality by both [the Provider] & [the Asset Service

Provider].

I also informed [the Senior Mortgage Executive] about our reported efforts about

trying to get into contact with [the Provider] & our SFS with [the Provider] on

March 18 2017.

She said she couldn’t contact [the Financial Adviser] without authorisation from

[the Provider]. She asked if I wanted to put in a complaint & I confirmed that I did.

Complaint ref [1317] has been registered & is currently being investigated by [the

Provider’s] dedicated Complaints Handling Team.

27 October 2017 … I noticed a missed call from [the Asset Service Provider]. At

11.43 am. I listened to her voice mail asking me to ring back […]. At 13.03 I rang

[the Asset Service Provider] & spoke to [an Asset Service Provider agent] for 8 mins

& 40 seconds after verifying my identity, he asked if my complaint with [the

Provider] was ongoing. I said yes. I then gave him a briefing of communication so

far plus the 2 DD attempts by [the Provider] to take money from my [financial

service provider] Personal account. I informed him that instead of [the Provider]

classifying me as a Non-co-operating customer, I have no other option than to

classify [the Provider] as a Non cooperating bank. He then informed me that he had

received no files whatsoever in relation to our accounts with [the Provider]. This is

in total contradiction to the letter we received from [the Provider] on the 21st of

Sept 2017.

The call ended amicably at this point!

3 Contravention of Central Bank Guidelines & Consumer Protection Code in

relation to assessing overall financial repayment capacity to deal with all

borrowings by a [Asset Service Provider] senior mortgage executive

[An Asset Service Provider Mortgage Executive] called.at 09.01 on 3 November

2017.