Repayment Mortgage Decision Reference 2023-0008

Case OutcomePartially upheld
Subject MatterRepayment Mortgage
Reference2023-0008
Date20 January 2023
Finantial SectorBanking
Conducts Complained OfArrears handling -Mortgage Arears Resolution Process ,Complaint handling (Consumer Protection Code) , Delayed or inadequate communication, Dissatisfaction with customer service
Decision Ref:
2023-0008
Sector:
Banking
Product / Service:
Repayment Mortgage
Conduct(s) complained of:
Arrears handling - Mortgage Arears Resolution
Process
Delayed or inadequate communication
Complaint handling (Consumer Protection Code)
Dissatisfaction with customer service
Outcome:
Partially upheld
LEGALLY BINDING DECISION OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN
The complaint concerns the Provider’s administration of the Complainants’ mortgage loan
account.
The Complainants’ Case
In a letter dated 26 February 2018 (which accompanied the Complaint Form) the
Complainants say they formally complained to the Provider’s Complaints Handling Centre
on 26 August 2017 and that 128 working days had elapsed but they had yet to receive a
response to their complaint. The Complainants say the only correspondence received during
this period was six holding letters and a further ‘NOTICE OF INTENDED LEGAL ACTION’.
The Complainants say that in August 2014, an arrangement was offered by the Provider to
address their mortgage loan. The Complainants say they agreed to the terms of the
arrangement which commenced on 1 October 2014. They say the arrangement “entailed a
revised monthly repayment, a term extension, and critically the arrears would remain on the
account and would not increase.”
The Complainants say they were informed that the Provider would contact them at least 30
days before the end of the arrangement in 2029, to assess their circumstances. The
Complainants say they have complied fully with the terms of the arrangement.
Since March 2015, the Complainants say the Provider has been “persistent, aggressive and
threatening” in its attempts to amend the arrangement and has insisted that the
Complainants either repay the arrears immediately in a lump sum, or recapitalise the
arrears.
- 2 -
/Cont’d…
Referring to telephone call transcripts, the Complainants say they have advised the
Collections Department of the Provider’s Arrears Support Unit, on numerous occasions, of
the arrangement in place. Unfortunately, the Complainants say, the Provider has failed to
recognise this basic fact. The Complainants say the stress and anxiety of this situation has
been detrimental to the First Complainant’s already fragile health and well-being.
The Complainants say that after almost three years of being unjustifiably harassed, they are
now determined to bring the matter to a conclusion. In resolution of this complaint, the
Complainants say that:
“It is hoped we can reach an amicable resolution. However, this can only be achieved
if we receive the following:
1. A written apology from [the Provider] which:
a. acknowledges that we have been damaged by their actions.
b. guarantees that no further attempts to communicate with us in respect
of the mortgage repayment agreement as long as we continue to comply
with its terms.
c. acknowledges that our mortgage will be recognised as a performing loan.
d. guarantees that our mortgage will not be included in their proposed sale
from their current loan book to another party as per their media release
[…].
2. A level of redress that would be appropriate under the circumstances.”
The Provider’s Case
The Provider delivered its Complaint Response in September 2020. The Provider says the
Complainants incepted the mortgage loan agreement the subject of this complaint on 1 July
1999 and that it is secured by the Complainants’ primary residence. The Provider, when
responding to the formal investigation of this office, said that there was then currently no
Alternative Repayment Arrangement (ARA) in place
At the time of responding, the Provider said that the Complainants’ loan had not been
transferred to a third party and remained under the ownership of the Provider. It explained
however, in January 2019, that it had engaged the services of an Asset Service Provider to
manage the Complainants’ account on its behalf.
The Provider says that on 1 October 2014, the arrears balance on the loan account was
€10,889.24 [This figure was corrected in a submission dated 13 November 2020].
Prior to the term extension being agreed and put in place from 1 October 2014, the Provider
says the normal monthly repayment was €484.78. Following the term extension, the
Provider says the normal monthly repayment was €199.95 from 1 October 2014.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT