Topaz Finance Limited trading as Bloom Homeloans · DRN-6072606

The complaint Mrs and Mr L are unhappy with how they’ve been treated by Topaz Finance Limited trading as Bloom Homeloans, in relation to their mortgage. What happened Mrs and Mr L originally took out a mortgage with another lender in 2006. The original borrowing was for 105,000 on an interest-only basis over a 25-year term. The mortgage was initially on a fixed rate for the first three years, after which it reverted to a variable rate guaranteed to be below the Standard Variable Rate (SVR). When the fixed rate came to an end, the original lender didn’t offer any new rates of interest. Mrs and Mr L have stayed on this variable rate, ever since. The mortgage has transferred to different mortgage companies over the years, and transferred to Bloom Homeloans (BH) in February 2025. Mrs and Mr L have raised several complaints about the mortgage over time. In February 2025 another Ombudsman issued a final decision on a complaint which included concerns Mrs and Mr L had raised about the level of the SVR. That Ombudsman didn’t uphold the complaint. In April 2025, after the mortgage had transferred to BH, Mrs and Mr L raised further concerns. In summary, they complained about the nature and frequency of correspondence they’d received from BH due to arrears, including about a Field Agent being instructed to discuss the account. Mrs and Mr L were unhappy about BH asking for income and expenditure information, as they thought BH was only seeking this information for its own benefit. They also complained about the interest rate being too high and said that BH was breaching their Human Right to peaceful enjoyment of property. Mrs and Mr L also complained about various things they were unhappy about in relation to a DSAR. BH conceded it should’ve been clearer in its communication with Mrs and Mr L about the DSAR and it apologised. But it didn’t otherwise consider it had done anything wrong. Mrs and Mr L referred their concerns to the Financial Ombudsman Service. An Investigator here issued an assessment not upholding the complaint. Mrs and Mr L remained unhappy and asked for the matter to be escalated to an Ombudsman. In addition to the points they’d already made, they also raised concerns about BH’s reporting of the account to credit reference agencies. The case has been passed to me to make a final decision. 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. Having done so, I’ve reached the same overall outcome as the Investigator. Before I explain

-- 1 of 4 --

why, I want to set out the purpose of my role. It isn’t to address every single point that’s been made to date. Instead, it’s to decide what’s fair and reasonable given the circumstances of this complaint. For that reason, I’m only going to refer to what I think are the most salient points when I set out my conclusions and my reasons for reaching them. But, having considered all of the submissions from both sides in full, I will continue to keep in mind all of the points that have been made, insofar as they relate to this complaint. The interest rate As mentioned, another Ombudsman has issued a final decision covering the fairness of the interest rate charged on Mrs and Mr L’s mortgage. The Ombudsman’s decision covered the rate of interest up to 1 September 2024. It would not be appropriate for me to revisit these findings. As such, I’ve considered the interest charged on Mrs and Mr L’s mortgage between that point and when they raised this complaint. According to the Mortgage Offer that Mrs and Mr L agreed to when the mortgage began, after the initial fixed rate period ended, the mortgage interest rate would be variable and guaranteed to be below the SVR. I’ve seen information about the level of the SVR since 1 September 2024 and can see that the interest charged on the mortgage account is in line with the what the Mortgage Offer sets out. Between 1 September 2024 and May 2025, there were three reductions in the Bank of England base rate (BoEBR). Each of 0.25%. BH has provided information to show that the rate charged on Mrs and Mr L’s mortgage has reduced in line with the reductions to the BoEBR. Mrs and Mr L’s mortgage isn’t a tracker mortgage, which is to say that the rate charged on the mortgage doesn’t contractually need to be adjusted in line with changes in the BoEBR. Having said that, it isn’t uncommon for SVRs (or rates linked to SVRs) to move in line with changes in the BoEBR. The terms and conditions of Mrs and Mr L’s mortgage allow for the SVR to be reduced for any reason. Thinking about all of this, I do not find that the rate of interest charged on Mrs and Mr L’s mortgage between 1 September 2024 and when they raised this complaint, is unfair. Concerns about the nature and frequency of correspondence Mrs and Mr L have raised specific concerns about correspondence they received dated 13 March 2025, that they say they received on 20 March 2025. The correspondence set out that Mrs and Mr L needed to contact BH within five working days, to prevent a Field Agent being instructed. Mrs and Mr L say this is unfair, because that time had already passed when they received the correspondence. First, BH has provided information showing that Mrs and Mr L weren’t in a payment arrangement when it sent this correspondence. And I can see that BH sent an earlier letter to Mrs and Mr L setting out the level of arrears on the account (around £6,000) and asking Mrs and Mr L to get in contact to discuss this. With this in mind, I don’t think it was unfair for BH to send the correspondence dated 13 March 2025 about instructing a field agent. BH has provided screen shots indicating the correspondence was sent on 13 March 2025, so the delay in Mrs and Mr L receiving it might be to do with issues with the postal system, which isn’t something I can hold BH responsible for.

-- 2 of 4 --

Regardless, BH has said it didn’t in fact instruct the Field Agent until 1 April 2025. So, Mrs and Mr L had time to contact BH to discuss the correspondence (and had opportunities to get in contact with BH earlier). Thinking about all of this, I don’t uphold this element of the complaint. Mrs and Mr L have raised concerns about the nature of the correspondence being threatening and they say they received multiple letters at the same time, all of which has caused unnecessary distress. I’ve reviewed the correspondence sent by BH and I don’t consider any of it is inappropriate. I appreciate that receiving correspondence about mortgage arrears is likely to cause a degree of worry and upset for most people. But lenders are required to notify borrowers of arrears and to encourage contact to try to get things back on track. In terms of Mrs and Mr L receiving lots of correspondence at the same time, they’ve not been specific about exactly what correspondence this was and when they received it. BH has provided information indicating that it was sending correspondence to Mrs and Mr L every few weeks. Given the account was in significant arrears and that an arrangement wasn’t in place with Mrs and Mr L, I don’t think the frequency of correspondence was inappropriate. If Mrs and Mr L did receive lots of correspondence at the same time, this might again have been to do with issues with the postal system. Mrs and Mr L have also raised concerns about receiving anonymous correspondence i.e. not coming from a named individual. Although this doesn’t appear to have been part of their original complaint, I can say in general terms that I don’t consider this is inherently unfair as all correspondence is ultimately on behalf of the business, rather than an individual. Requests for income and expenditure information Mrs and Mr L have said that they don’t believe BH’s requests for them to provide income and expenditure information, are intended to help them. Rather, Mrs and Mr L believe BH has requested this information for its own benefit, possibly to support enforcement action. Lenders are required to support borrowers who are in arrears to try to get back on track. In order to do this, it’s common practice for lenders to want to understand a borrower’s income and expenditure – as this has a bearing on what support may or may not be appropriate. I’ve seen no evidence that BH requesting income and expenditure information from Mrs and Mr L was for anything other than for it to consider how it might best be able to support Mrs and Mr L to get back on track. So, I don’t consider the requests unreasonable. Concerns about the DSAR Mrs and Mr L have raised several concerns about how BH responded to the DSAR raised in March 2025, including certain pieces of information being omitted and the format of the response being lacking. BH has conceded there were some things it could’ve done better, including in explaining why certain things Mrs and Mr L had mentioned weren’t being included. It has apologised to Mrs and Mr L for this – and I’m satisfied that’s enough to put things right. BH also says it did provide all of the information it was required to and in a suitable format, in line with the relevant regulations.

-- 3 of 4 --

I haven’t seen any persuasive evidence showing that BH hasn’t complied with its obligations or that it’s otherwise acted in a way in relation to the DSAR, that’s had a material impact on Mrs and Mr L. If Mrs and Mr L remain concerned about the way in which BH responded to the DSAR, including anything they believe represents a technical breach, they can pursue this with the Information Commissioner’s Office. Other matters There are two remaining issues I need to address. First, Mrs and Mr L have indicated they believe BH has breached their Human Rights. The European Convention on Human Rights imposes duties on states, not private mortgage companies. As such, what Mrs and Mr L have said about this has no impact on the outcome of the complaint. In response to the Investigator’s assessment, Mrs and Mr L raised concerns about BH’s reporting of the account to credit reference agencies. This didn’t form part of the original complaint, and therefore isn’t something I can address in this decision. Mrs and Mr L will need to raise this with BH separately if this is something they wish to pursue. In conclusion, other than issues to do with the DSAR – for which I think BH’s apology is enough to put things right – I haven’t found that BH has made any errors or otherwise treated Mrs and Mr L unfairly. 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 L and Mr L to accept or reject my decision before 23 April 2026. Ben Brewer Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --