Yorkshire Building Society · DRN-6249520

The complaint Mr W complains that Yorkshire Building Society (‘YBS’) discriminated against him because of his age when he spoke to it about a potential mortgage application. What happened In April 2025 Mr W called YBS to enquire about applying for a mortgage with them as the deal he had with his existing lender would soon be coming to an end. During this call YBS’s agent said the maximum mortgage term it would be able to offer would be nine years and three months – much shorter than the mortgage term he had with his existing lender. Mr W was unhappy with this as he felt YBS was discriminating against him because of his age, and that it wasn’t considering his wider circumstances – including that he was intending to do a joint application with his wife, who’s ten years younger. He raised a complaint. YBS said its policies meet and adhere to strict regulations. It said that unlike goods and other services, the rules concerning age discrimination within responsible lending are different. Appropriate risk assessments must take place to support a policy before it’s implemented, and its policy takes into consideration the increased risk on future affordability. It’s designed to protect customers from the higher risks of changing affordability. Overall, YBS didn’t agree that it had acted unfairly or that it had made an error. Mr W referred his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. YBS said that Mr W isn’t an eligible complainant to bring his complaint his complaint to this Service and that it should have told him about this sooner. Because of this, it offered to pay him £100 in resolution of his complaint. As Mr W didn’t accept that offer, our Investigator reviewed the case. He concluded that YBS hadn’t treated Mr W unfairly or unreasonably and that its policy was based on a fair and proportionate assessment of risk. And, therefore, that it doesn’t need to do anything further. Mr W didn’t agree and raised several points, including referring to the Equality Act 2010 and the Consumer Duty. He also believes that YBS has misinterpreted the jurisdiction of the Financial Ombudsman Service. Mr W asked for the complaint to be reviewed by an Ombudsman. I reached a different outcome to the Investigator, so I issued a provisional decision to give the parties an opportunity to provide further comments or evidence. My provisional decision I said: “I’ve listened to a recording of the phone call between Mr W and YBS and I’ve also considered what YBS’s lending policy says about how it determines the maximum mortgage term it can lend up to. When speaking with YBS, Mr W clearly wanted to find out if he would be able to

-- 1 of 3 --

obtain a mortgage with it over the term he required. YBS’s agent took some details from Mr W including his date of birth and some relatively high-level information about where his income is derived from – a portfolio of buy to let properties. Mr W also said that his wife is 10 years younger and she has an income. The agent looked into Mr W’s request and told him that the maximum term YBS would be able to agree to would be around nine years. Mr W asked why this was as he had an existing mortgage with another lender that had an 18-year term. As the conversation continued, the agent provided details of YBS’s lending criteria and Mr W grew concerned that what he was being told equated to age discrimination. He felt that YBS’s decision shouldn’t be based just on age but in conjunction with affordability and risk as well. I’ve thought very carefully about what’s happened in this individual case. And, I can absolutely see, because of the conversation Mr W had with YBS, that it made him feel concerned that he had been discriminated against and that he wouldn’t be able to secure the type of mortgage he needed. He has also described how this made him feel embarrassed. I am not persuaded YBS’s agent intended to make Mr W feel this way and they were, in my view, trying to be helpful. But, nevertheless, I’m satisfied this conversation caused Mr W to experience some distress, inconvenience and disappointment, which I consider could have been avoided. That said, the reason I’ve reached this view is not because I think YBS’s lending stance is discriminatory, it’s because I consider the person he spoke to made a mistake. I can see from the information YBS has provided that its policy allows its underwriters to consider agreeing to a proposition like Mr W’s, despite what it told Mr W about the maximum term. Therefore, I consider it ought to have told him that it would need to consider a full application before giving him an answer. YBS’s lending policy is commercially sensitive, so it isn’t something I can share with Mr W. But, in line with our rules, I can accept information in confidence where I think that’s appropriate and where I have summarised it, which I have done above. I consider that instead of telling Mr W the maximum term would be around nine years, that it ought to have told him that the maximum term would be subject to underwriting. And that he would need to submit an application so YBS could consider his (and his wife’s – should she wish to be party to the mortgage) full details. I think that if YBS had done this, that it’s possible it would have agreed to lend to Mr S, when taking into account factors such as the source of his income. Even if that wasn’t the case, I consider it would have been able to help show Mr W that it had conducted a full review, before telling him it couldn’t offer the mortgage term he wanted. I think in that scenario, it would have at least gone some way towards alleviating any concerns Mr W might have had about potential discrimination. As above, I can see that YBS made Mr W feel discriminated against. I’m satisfied there wasn’t any lasting impact on Mr W because he was able to do what he wanted to do anyway with another lender in the end. He’s told us he was able to secure a similar new interest rate with the same mortgage term he required. But I am satisfied he’s experienced avoidable distress, inconvenience and disappointment. So, I provisionally require YBS to pay Mr W £300 compensation. I think that’s a fair way to recognise the impact of what’s happened in this individual case. I don’t intend to require YBS to do anything further beyond that.” YBS accepted my provisional decision. Mr W said he accepts the £300 award in principle, but he has requested that I change the reasoning of my decision to reflect what he considers as an underlying systemic issue. He’s referred to concerns he had previously raised

-- 2 of 3 --

including, but not limited to, about YBS’s lending policy and the law and regulation. Mr W maintains that there has been discrimination. He has also asked that I take into account the effort and time he has invested in pursuing this complaint. 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. I’ve thought very carefully again about my provisional findings taking into account the responses to my provisional decision. However, while I appreciate it will come as a disappointment to Mr W, I see no reason to depart from them. I explained in my provisional decision why I considered that something had gone wrong when Mr W spoke with YBS about his potential application. I made it clear that the reason I’ve reached this view is not because I think YBS’s lending stance is discriminatory, it’s because I consider the person he spoke to made a mistake. I know Mr W disagrees that it was YBS’s agent that made a mistake and he maintains that the issue has been caused by an underlying systemic issue – that is, a problem with YBS’s lending policy. But neither party has said anything new or provided any new evidence which leads me to conclude differently to what I said in my provisional decision. I have also considered again the impact on Mr W of what’s happened. I do appreciate it’s a matter that has caused Mr W avoidable distress, inconvenience, embarrassment and disappointment which could have been avoided. But I remain satisfied that £300 compensation fairly recognises that impact, in all the circumstances. I don’t, therefore, require YBS to do anything beyond paying him a total of £300 compensation. My final decision My final decision is that I require Yorkshire Building Society to pay Mr W a total of £300 (this is instead of, and not in addition to, the £100 it previously offered) – if Mr W accepts my decision. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr W to accept or reject my decision before 23 April 2026. Keith Barnes Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --