Variable Mortgage Decision Reference 2022-0102

• Case Outcome: Rejected
• Reference: 2022-0102
• Date: 23 March 2022
• Year: 2022
• Subject Matter: Variable Mortgage
• Finantial Sector: Banking
• Conducts Complained Of: Fees & charges applied (mortgage),Failure to provide accurate account/balance information , Failure to release security, Selling mortgage to t/p provider

Decision Ref:

2022-0102

Sector:

Banking

Product / Service:

Variable Mortgage

Conduct(s) complained of:

Fees & charges applied (mortgage)

Failure to provide accurate account/balance

information

Selling mortgage to t/p provider

Failure to release security

Outcome:

Rejected

LEGALLY BINDING DECISION OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN

This complaint concerns two loan accounts. One account is in the sole name of the First

Complainant (00242***), which will be referred to in this decision as ‘Account A’ and one

which is in the name of the Second Complainant which is a Company, and in respect of which

the First Complainant is a personal guarantor (00282***) or ‘Account B’.

The Complainants’ Case

The Complainants say that in December 2016 the Provider sold the Complainants’ facilities

to a third party entity. The Complainants state that the balances of the two loans that were

transferred to the third party, were incorrect.

The Complainants assert that their financial advisors conducted an analysis of the

overcharging by the Provider. The Complainants state that the financial advisor arrived at

figures of approximately €13,769.73 for Account A and €11,880.81 for Account B.

The Complainant submits that he is dissatisfied with ‘the manner in which [the Provider]

handled these two facilities”.

- 2 -

/Cont’d…

The Provider’s Case

The Provider, in its letter dated 29th March 2020, states that it was very supportive of the

Complainants and their business, noting that forbearance was granted a number of times.

The Provider states that it would have been justified in calling in the liabilities owed to it and

it considers that its actions were reasonable in the circumstances.

The Provider states its confirmation that, with regard to Account B, the correct interest was

charged from the date of drawdown, to the date the Complainants’ facilities were sold and

submits;

“I can confirm that the [Provider] has not incorrectly calculated the margin on your

loan facilities and has not overcharged you in this regard”.

The Complaint for Adjudication

The complaint is that the Provider poorly administered and overcharged the Complainants’

loan accounts.

The Complainant wants the Provider to:

- Review the level of interest refunded in light of the Complainants’ financial advisors’

analysis;

- Address the shortcomings in how it dealt with the Complainants’ facilities;

- Propose how it will remediate the situation;

- Explain how it arrived at its decision to sell the Complainants’ loans to a third party.

Decision

During the investigation of this complaint by this Office, the Provider was requested to

supply its written response to the complaint and to supply all relevant documents and

information. The Provider responded in writing to the complaint and supplied a number of

items in evidence. The Complainants were given the opportunity to see the Provider’s

response and the evidence supplied by the Provider. A full exchange of documentation and

evidence took place between the parties.

In arriving at my Legally Binding Decision I have carefully considered the evidence and

submissions put forward by the parties to the complaint. Having reviewed and considered

the submissions made by the parties to this complaint, I am satisfied that the submissions

and evidence furnished did not disclose a conflict of fact such as would require the holding

of an Oral Hearing to resolve any such conflict. I am also satisfied that the submissions and

evidence furnished were sufficient to enable a Legally Binding Decision to be made in this

complaint without the necessity for holding an Oral Hearing.