The Mortgage Works (UK) Plc · DRN-6141735

The complaint Mrs S complains about three buy to let mortgages with The Mortgage Works (UK) Plc (TMW). She’s represented in this complaint by her son Mr S. What happened Mrs S has three buy to let mortgages with TMW, which I’ll refer to as account 668, account 777, and account 586. All three mortgages were taken out in 2009 on interest only terms. They came to an end in 2019 but to date the capital has not been repaid. In recent years, no payments have been made either, so all three mortgages are in substantial arrears. Mrs S is represented by her son Mr S. He says that the titles of the properties on the 777 and 586 accounts are fatally defective, meaning the standard securities held by TMW are unenforceable, the properties are unmarketable, and have no value. He says that TMW should agree for the properties to be transferred to him. He says that TMW is acting unfairly in threatening to take court action to repossess all three properties. Our investigator didn’t recommend that the complaint be upheld, so Mr S asked for it to be reviewed by an ombudsman. 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. The starting point in thinking about what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances is the mortgage agreements Mrs S took out. She borrowed money from TMW, agreeing to repay the capital by the end of the term and to pay interest in the meantime. All other things being equal, it’s not unreasonable that TMW expects Mrs S to do that. In that context, I’ve noted that these are buy to let mortgages – meaning they are unregulated. However, the capital has not been repaid even though the terms ended in 2019, and no interest payments have been made for some years. TMW was initially limited in what action it could take by the restrictions on repossession action introduced as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. Those restrictions are no longer in place. However, TMW has not taken court action to date because of the title issues Mr S has raised. Mr S says he has an expert report saying that the titles are invalid. TMW says it has an expert report saying that the titles are valid and the properties can be sold. Neither party has given us a full copy of their expert report. Mr S has shared an email but not his full report. TMW says its report was obtained by its solicitors and is subject to legal privilege. For the same reason, it’s not currently obliged to share the report with Mr S. In any case, it’s not necessary for me to consider the reports, or decide which position is correct. That’s because

-- 1 of 2 --

it’s not for me to decide whether title to a property is valid as a matter of law or not. That’s a matter for the Registers of Scotland and ultimately the courts. TMW has explained that it hasn’t taken recovery action yet because its solicitors were investigating the matters raised by Mr S and considering the position. Now that it has its own expert opinion, it considers that it can proceed with recovery action. It’s already issued calling up notices, and court action for 668 – which does not have title issues – is underway. As I say, whether the titles are valid as a matter of law and how that impacts on whether TMW is entitled to repossess and sell the properties is a question for the court, not for me. But I can consider whether TMW has acted fairly and reasonably in all the circumstances. I think it has. These mortgages are long overdue for repayment and are in substantial arrears. TMW paused taking action while it assessed the issues raised by Mr S. That, and the coronavirus restrictions, had the effect of giving Mrs S several years atter the terms expired to find a way to repay. But the mortgages were not repaid. TMW has investigated the issues Mr S raised. It’s now satisfied that it can proceed, and it intends to do so. As I say, it’s fair and reasonable that Mrs S repays the money she borrowed, on the terms she agreed to. As that’s not proved possible despite the passage of several years, it’s not unreasonable that TMW is now taking recovery action. It will be for the courts, not for me, to decide whether as a matter of law it is entitled to recover and sell the properties notwithstanding the problems Mr S says there are with the title. But I don’t think TMW is acting unfairly in taking, or intending to take, recovery action in these circumstances. It remains open to Mrs S to repay the mortgages before that happens. Finally, Mr S is also unhappy that TMW periodically wanted to speak to Mrs S rather than accept him as acting on her behalf. It’s not unreasonable for TMW to check Mrs S’s intentions from time to time, including whether she remains happy for Mr S to represent her. And it is still required to communicate with her, as the borrower, in certain circumstances – such as when serving formal notices. I don’t think it’s acted unfairly here either. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs S to accept or reject my decision before 17 April 2026. Simon Pugh Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --