Santander UK Plc · DRN-6229030

The complaint Mr L has complained that Santander UK Plc allowed his estranged wife (who I will refer to as Ms M) to take a new preferential interest rate product on their jointly held mortgage against his wishes. What happened Mr L and Ms M have held a mortgage with Santander since 2020. I understand they separated in 2023 with Mr L leaving the property. At that time their mortgage was on a fixed interest rate of 1.89% until 2 May 2025, after which it would move to a variable rate. In February 2025 Ms M applied for a new preferential interest rate product, which was a fixed rate of 4.18% until 2 June 2028. Ms M paid the product fee upfront (rather than it being added to the mortgage debt). A mortgage offer was issued, which Ms M signed to accept. At the start of March 2025 Mr L spoke to Santander and provided an updated correspondence address. Santander reissued the mortgage offer to him at that address. Mr L didn’t sign to accept it, but Santander then put it in place anyway under its single signature exception process. Unhappy with that, Mr L raised a complaint. Santander responded to the complaint on 28 May 2025. It said it had followed the correct process as, when there is a marital dispute marker on an account, it allows a new rate to be arranged if it is beneficial to the mortgage payments and the product fee is paid upfront. It says it issues the mortgage offer to both parties, but if only one accepts it then it will still proceed. Mr L referred the matter to our service saying that if Santander hadn’t put a new preferential interest rate in place then Ms M would have had to either sell the property or remortgage into her sole name. He said he’d been entered into a long term mortgage product against his will, the change had impacted his credit score, meaning he’d received a less favourable rate on a mortgage he’d taken out elsewhere, and he remains exposed to potential future defaults by Ms M. Our Investigator didn’t uphold the complaint. She said any court order between Mr L and Ms M doesn’t bind Santander and if Mr L wants to be released from the mortgage, then that is between him and Ms M. She said Santander hadn’t acted unreasonably, it had followed its policy for changes like this and there was no detriment to Mr L as he was always liable for the mortgage, it just had lower payments now so there was less risk of arrears. Mr L didn’t agree and so the case was passed to me to decide. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.

-- 1 of 3 --

Although I’ve read and considered the whole file I’ll keep my comments to what I think is relevant. If I don’t comment on any specific point it’s not because I’ve not considered it but because I don’t think I need to comment on it in order to reach the right outcome. Mr L has said that Santander has acted illegally and has breached GDPR in using his data without his consent. I’ve had regard for all Mr L has said and sent us, alongside taking into account what the relevant law says too. The Financial Ombudsman Service is an informal alternative to the courts. It may be the courts would look at this matter differently, but my role is to concentrate on what I consider fair and reasonable. We’re not the regulator, and I’ve no power under our terms of reference to comment on, or otherwise determine, how financial businesses operate in general terms. I have to consider this complaint by reference to the particular situation. When I do that, I’m satisfied Santander hasn’t acted unreasonably. I’ll explain why below. Once Santander was aware of the dispute, it should not have made changes to the mortgage without both parties’ consent if the changes might negatively impact the party that did not consent to the change. However, a change to a fixed rate would not necessarily negatively impact Mr L. The change made the mortgage more affordable, so it is less likely that it would fall into arrears and, therefore, it also is less likely that missed payments would be recorded on Mr L’s credit file. The potential negative for Mr L is that there is an early repayment charge (“ERC”) if the mortgage is repaid during the fixed rate period. That might never apply anyway, but in any event Santander has mitigated that by saying it will waive the ERC if the property is sold. It is reasonable for lenders to have a process in place to assist where there is a dispute between the parties. There might sometimes be good reasons to approve changes with only one party’s agreement. Santander has a policy in place and, having reviewed everything very carefully, I’m satisfied it both followed that policy and that the policy is fair and reaches a legitimate aim without causing financial detriment to the non-consenting party. I understand, in error, Santander may have issued something to say the change wouldn’t happen without Mr L’s consent, but that was incorrect. The change was allowed without his consent. Mr L said he’s been affected, but nothing, in that respect, has changed. He was always liable for this mortgage and the underlying mortgage hasn’t changed; the mortgage balance, repayment basis and term remained the same, all that happened is that the interest rate was reduced from a reversionary variable rate to 4.18% fixed. A reduction in the interest rate reduces the risk of his credit rating being impacted as the payments are lower, therefore less likely to be unaffordable. I think it was fair for Santander to agree to put a new preferential interest rate in place. Santander has said that it will waive the ERC if the property is sold, and that is fair. The fixed rate product won’t prevent the property being sold or reduce Mr L’s share in the equity. Regardless of any agreement – or not - between Mr L and Ms M, Mr L remains liable for the mortgage payments and the full balance of the mortgage. Arrears would also affect his credit file. I can’t fairly say that Santander should withhold access to preferential interest rates in order to make payments less affordable and Mr L hasn’t given any reason why he wanted the mortgage to remain on the much higher reversionary rate (other than he seems to think it might force Ms M to sell the property or remortgage it into her sole name). Ultimately, the dispute between Mr L and Ms M will have to be resolved between them or through a court process. I understand this is difficult, but I think it’s fair for Santander to agree a preferential interest rate to make payments more affordable until the matter is

-- 2 of 3 --

resolved. I understand Mr L feels Ms M is less likely to sell (or refinance) the property due to the lower payments, but that can’t form part of Santander’s considerations. That is between Mr L and Ms M. If Mr L feels Ms M is in breach of their court order, then that is something he will need to take back to court. The mortgage can’t be used as a way to force Ms M to take certain actions. If Mr L believes Santander has breached data protection law, he might want to raise that with the Information Commissioner’s Office1. But for all the reasons given, I don’t agree Santander has dealt with Mr L unfairly. Whilst I sympathise with what has happened with Mr L and Ms M’s marital situation and subsequent issues with the property and mortgage, those are things that Mr L needs to discuss with his solicitor to resolve as part of the divorce process, and if Mr L feels Ms M has breached their court order, through the court process. My final decision I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr L to accept or reject my decision before 22 April 2026. Julia Meadows Ombudsman 1 https://ico.org.uk/

-- 3 of 3 --