- What was happening
- An unregulated interest-only buy-to-let mortgage of a little over £111,000 taken out in early 2007 with another lender and transferred to Rooftop Mortgages Limited in 2016. The term expired in 2022 and the borrower could not repay. Rooftop agreed a number of informal term extensions. In March 2025 it issued a formal demand. The borrower proposed selling the mortgaged property at a likely price of £75,000, paying a £5,000 lump sum from savings and repaying part of the residue from the sale of a second property expected sometime in 2026. Rooftop rejected those proposals. The complaint was not upheld.
- What mattered to the Ombudsman
- That the borrower had already received several years of informal extensions and forbearance
- That the proposed repayment route was open-ended, depending on a second sale expected at an uncertain future date
- That the proposals would still have left a shortfall of around £19,000
- That responsibility for the fairness of the lending relationship transferred with the mortgage in 2016
- That the test applied is whether the lender's decision was unfair, not whether it was unwelcome
- What happened before escalation
- Several informal term extensions were given after term expiry before a formal demand was issued.
- How it ended
- Complaint not upheld. No order or award made against Rooftop Mortgages Limited.
Analysis
Case comparison matrix
Published enforcement, receivership and sale decisions set side by side, showing what each decision records about the steps taken. The matrix reports the contents of the decisions; it does not score conduct.
How to read this table
Recorded means the published decision states that the step happened. Not recorded means the published decision does not mention it, which is not the same as the step not having happened — decisions summarise events and omit much of the underlying correspondence. n/a means the step does not arise on the facts of that case.
Case by case, in plain English
What was happening, what the business did before things escalated, what mattered to the Ombudsman, and how it ended.
- What was happening
- Three buy-to-let mortgages where, due to arrears, Rooftop appointed Law of Property Act receivers to manage the properties. The receivers decided the properties were not viable as lettings and sold them, the third sale completing in August 2025. The complaint, raised in March 2025, concerned information about the disposals and the receivers' conduct, and was not upheld.
- What mattered to the Ombudsman
- That these were unregulated buy-to-let mortgages, so MCOB and the Consumer Duty did not apply
- That whether a business acted unlawfully is for the courts, not the Ombudsman
- That matters already dealt with in separate complaints were not reopened
- What happened before escalation
- The decision concerns property disposals and responsibility for the acts of the receiver.
- How it ended
- Complaint not upheld.
- What was happening
- A complaint against Pepper (UK) Limited trading as Engage Credit about a mortgage taken out with Kensington Mortgage Company Limited in 2005 and transferred to Engage in 2022. The complaint concerned the interest rate, the balance and fees and charges added to the loan. It was upheld.
- What mattered to the Ombudsman
- The size of the margin applied over base rate compared with the product terms
- That legal fees connected with pre-action correspondence, and interest charged on those fees, should not stand
- What happened before escalation
- General comparator only — this decision concerns Pepper / Engage Credit, not Rooftop. Legal fees and interest on those fees connected with pre-action correspondence were ordered removed.
- How it ended
- Complaint upheld. Interest margin reduced, overpaid interest refunded with 8% simple interest, legal fees and interest on those fees removed, and £500 compensation paid.
- What was happening
- A buy-to-let mortgage held on one property within a wider portfolio. In June 2023 the borrower told Rooftop his buy-to-let business was no longer viable and that he had a buyer for the mortgaged property, but that the sale would leave a shortfall of around £15,000 which he said would be covered by the equity from the sale of another property. Rooftop declined and required full repayment on sale. The other sale did not proceed and both properties were let again. In March 2024 Rooftop started enforcement action because of the level of arrears. In April 2024 the borrower asked Rooftop to hold off, served notice on his tenants and remarketed the property. Rooftop agreed; the property sold for around £35,000 less than the asking price, leaving a shortfall of over £60,000.
- What mattered to the Ombudsman
- What the lender knew when it made the 2023 decision, not what happened afterwards
- The risk that the mortgaged property would sell before the other property, leaving the agreed shortfall unpaid
- That most of the increase in the shortfall came from payments not being made and a lower 2024 sale price
- That agreeing the 2024 sale avoided further receiver and solicitor costs
- What happened before escalation
- Enforcement began in March 2024 and was held off in April 2024 so the property could be remarketed; the Ombudsman recorded that this saved further receiver and solicitor costs.
- How it ended
- Complaint not upheld.
- What was happening
- Two joint buy-to-let mortgages in arrears. Rooftop's records showed final demand letters issued in August 2023 stating that LPA receivers would be appointed if the accounts were not brought up to date. Receivers were appointed. The complaint concerned notification of the appointment and the information provided about the accounts afterwards, and was not upheld.
- What mattered to the Ombudsman
- That final demand letters had been issued warning receivers would be appointed
- That post to the correspondence address had been returned, making use of the property address reasonable
- That the receiver, though appointed by the lender, acted on the borrowers' behalf, so receiver fee questions went to the receiver
- What happened before escalation
- The decision concerns receiver costs and the information provided about receiver activity.
- How it ended
- Complaint not upheld.
- What was happening
- A complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC about an interest-only mortgage and a linked mortgage current account whose term ended in 2017. The borrowers were unhappy that the bank's solicitors sent them a notice to quit and that legal fees were added to the mortgage balance after they believed the mortgage had been repaid. The complaint was not upheld.
- What mattered to the Ombudsman
- That the mortgage term had ended in 2017 and the borrowing had not in fact been repaid in full
- That the solicitors' notice to quit followed from the position on the account rather than being a separate wrong
- That legal fees added to the balance were treated as costs arising from the unrepaid borrowing
- What happened before escalation
- General comparator only — this decision concerns Barclays, not Rooftop. The bank's solicitors sent a notice to quit and legal fees were added to the mortgage balance.
- How it ended
- Complaint not upheld.
- What was happening
- A buy-to-let mortgage where the borrowers began having difficulty paying in mid-2023 following interest rate rises. Rooftop appointed Law of Property Act receivers to manage the property. The complaint about that appointment and about Rooftop's conduct was not upheld.
- What mattered to the Ombudsman
- The length of time the borrowers had been given to resolve the position before receivers were appointed
- That the lender could have started possession action earlier than it did
- That the correspondence explained consequences rather than being designed to intimidate
- What happened before escalation
- The Ombudsman considered that substantial forbearance had been shown before receivers were appointed.
- How it ended
- Complaint not upheld.
- What was happening
- An interest-only mortgage taken out with Rooftop in 2006, fixed for two years and then reverting to LIBOR plus 4.1%. Payments from the borrowers and the Department for Work and Pensions cleared the arrears and built an overpayment balance, which was eroded from 2022 as interest rates rose and payments reduced. The complaint concerned the erosion of that balance, the interest rate increases and the charges applied, and was not upheld.
- What mattered to the Ombudsman
- That the rate charged tracked LIBOR and its successor rates as the 2006 offer provided
- That the additional sum complained of was interest under the terms, not a charge
- That the arrears charges within the period considered had already been reversed
- That the correspondence set out consequences, which the Ombudsman said he would expect
- What happened before escalation
- The decision records payments from the borrowers and the DWP, an overpayment balance eroded as rates rose, and arrears charges that Rooftop had already reversed before the decision.
- How it ended
- Complaint not upheld.
- What was happening
- An interest-only mortgage taken out in May 2001 transferred to Rooftop in 2019; the term ended in May 2021. In July 2022 it emerged that the title deeds could not be located and had to be reconstituted, which was completed in August 2023. During that period the interest rate was set at 0% and no payments were required. The complaint concerned the lost deeds, a legal fee, resumed payments and a refused settlement offer, and was not upheld.
- What mattered to the Ombudsman
- That the evidence suggested the deeds were never in the lender's possession
- That reconstitution was arranged at no cost, with interest at 0% and no payments due meanwhile
- That the Ombudsman was not persuaded the failed sale was an arm's length sale
- What happened before escalation
- Interest and payments were frozen while a documentary problem was resolved and no recovery action was taken pending the final decision.
- How it ended
- Complaint not upheld.
- What was happening
- A mortgage taken out in 2006 on a leasehold property. The borrower had been in a long-running dispute with a property management company about service charges. This service had already decided an earlier complaint about payments made up to August 2020. The Ombudsman dismissed the part of the new complaint covering that earlier period and decided the merits of one further payment. In January 2021 Rooftop received a county court judgment dated 25 November 2020 recording that the borrower owed the management company money. Rooftop wrote to her, told her she was in breach of her mortgage terms, and said that if it did not receive confirmation of an arrangement within ten days it might make the payment to protect its security. It made the payment on 16 February 2021 and added it to the mortgage account.
- What mattered to the Ombudsman
- That a county court judgment had already determined the borrower was in breach of the lease
- That the lender told the borrower about the judgment and gave her a chance to deal with it
- That no application had been made to set the judgment aside or to have a tribunal rule the charges unfair
- That the mortgage terms made the borrower liable for expenses incurred in remedying a breach
- What happened before escalation
- The decision concerns Rooftop paying disputed leasehold service charges after a county court judgment and adding the payment to the mortgage balance; no enforcement by Rooftop was in issue.
- How it ended
- Complaint not upheld. The earlier period was dismissed without consideration of the merits.
- What was happening
- Receivers appointed by Rooftop sold a buy-to-let property at auction, leaving £69,800.45 still owing. The borrower said a letter from Rooftop meant she no longer owed it.
- What mattered to the Ombudsman
- The receivers acted as the borrower's agent, so the conduct of the sale was not Rooftop's to answer for
- The wording of the 2007 mortgage conditions on shortfall liability
- That the letter relied on was a complaint response, written about the level of contact, not a new agreement
- What happened before escalation
- LPA receivers appointed by Rooftop marketed the property, put it into two auctions and sold it, leaving a shortfall of £69,800.45; the complaint about the sale itself could not be considered against Rooftop because the receivers acted as the borrower's agent.
- How it ended
- The Ombudsman did not uphold the complaint. The shortfall was still owed, and the complaint about the sale itself was not one the service could consider against Rooftop.
- What was happening
- An interest-only mortgage where the borrower arranged an equity release agreement with another provider that would not cover the full balance owed to Rooftop. She asked Rooftop to accept a shortfall of roughly £14,000, initially in February 2023, and on 7 April 2023 proposed repaying it at £500 per month on an unsecured basis. She told Rooftop she needed an answer by 12 May 2023, when the equity release offer expired. Rooftop conducted a new income and expenditure assessment on 20 April 2023 and confirmed acceptance on 12 May 2023 by telephone and by email sent at 11:12 am. The borrower was unable to confirm the equity release offer in time and the replacement offer was £10,000 lower.
- What mattered to the Ombudsman
- That a lender is not obliged to accept a shortfall at all
- That the lender needed an up-to-date income and expenditure assessment before it could properly consider the proposal
- That acceptance was communicated on the date the borrower had asked for
- That the borrower could have finalised the proposal sooner
- What happened before escalation
- Rooftop carried out a new income and expenditure assessment before accepting a shortfall settlement proposal; the decision turned on whether that assessment was needed before it could answer.
- How it ended
- Complaint not upheld.
- What was happening
- An interest-only mortgage taken out in 2007 with another lender transferred to Rooftop Mortgages in April 2019. The borrower made a £100 overpayment which was not applied to the capital balance, because Rooftop required overpayments of at least £1,000 to be applied to capital. The Ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the mortgage offer permitted smaller overpayments and that Rooftop had not validly varied the contract terms.
- What mattered to the Ombudsman
- What the original mortgage offer actually said about lump sum payments, rather than the servicer's later threshold
- That a welcome letter after a transfer did not explain that a contract term was being varied
- That no amended terms had been provided to the borrower
- What happened before escalation
- This decision concerns the treatment of overpayments after a portfolio transfer; no enforcement action was in issue.
- How it ended
- Complaint upheld. Overpayments to be applied in line with section 11 of the mortgage offer and backdated, interest adjusted, any interest overpaid refunded with 8% simple interest, and £200 paid for distress and inconvenience.
- What was happening
- A complaint that Rooftop made payments to a managing agent claiming service charges on a leasehold property and added the cost to the mortgage balance. Rooftop had received copies of county court judgments recording that the borrower owed the managing agent money, and a copy of a section 146 notice said to have been served on her. Rooftop wrote to the borrower each time it received a request for payment. The complaint was not upheld.
- What mattered to the Ombudsman
- That payment was only reasonable where the lender genuinely believed its security was at risk
- That a threat to forfeit is not enough on its own — a court or tribunal had determined a breach
- That the borrower was notified of each payment request and given the chance to pay or challenge it
- That the lender still had to treat the borrower fairly and follow the regulator's Covid-19 guidance
- What happened before escalation
- The decision concerns service charge payments made after county court judgments; the Ombudsman separately reminded Rooftop of Covid-19 guidance under which possession action should not be started or re-started until after October 2020.
- How it ended
- Complaint not upheld.
- What was happening
- A complaint brought through a claims management company about fees and charges added to a mortgage taken out in August 2006. Arrears fees, the cost of possession proceedings and unpaid direct debit fees had been added to the account. The Ombudsman upheld the complaint and required Rooftop to refund 31 monthly arrears management fees of £50 and six unpaid direct debit fees, totalling £1,685, and to rework the account to remove interest added to those fees.
- What mattered to the Ombudsman
- That the borrower was in financial difficulty and had still paid the monthly payment in the months in question
- That charging an unpaid direct debit fee on top of a legitimately charged arrears fee was not fair
- That interest added to refunded fees also had to come off
- What happened before escalation
- The decision concerns arrears fees, unpaid direct debit fees and the cost of possession proceedings; the complaint was brought through a claims management company about the charges themselves.
- How it ended
- Complaint upheld. Rooftop Mortgages Limited required, in full and final settlement, to refund £1,685 to the account and rework the mortgage to remove any interest added to those fees.
- What was happening
- A leasehold mortgage originally taken out with another lender and later transferred to Rooftop. Rooftop paid service charges claimed by a management company after receiving a county court judgment and, later, a notice of proposed forfeiture, and charged a fee for making those payments. It also asked the borrower to pay arrears said to have been capitalised by the previous lender and sent field agents to visit. The management company later accepted that its notice was incorrect in parts and refunded the money paid by Rooftop, which put the account back into the position it would have been in. The complaint was not upheld.
- What mattered to the Ombudsman
- That the lender believed the forfeiture notice was valid at the time, the defects only emerging much later
- That payment followed either a court judgment or a notice of proposed forfeiture, with a chance to object first
- That the money had since been refunded and the account put back into position
- That it is not the Ombudsman's role to tell a lender when to issue possession proceedings
- What happened before escalation
- The decision records field agent visits to the property and service charge payments made after a county court judgment and a notice of proposed forfeiture; the sums were later refunded by the management company.
- How it ended
- Complaint not upheld. The sums paid had already been refunded to Rooftop by the management company and the account adjusted.
- What was happening
- A complaint against Barclays about legal fees of £6,943 charged to a shared ownership mortgage account after possession proceedings were stopped. The borrower's relatives said Barclays had refused to give a breakdown of the fees. The Ombudsman obtained and reviewed the confidential breakdown, the solicitors' charging scheme and the invoices, was satisfied that reasonable legal fees had been charged, and did not uphold the complaint.
- What mattered to the Ombudsman
- That a lender may only claim its reasonable costs
- That the Ombudsman could review the confidential breakdown and invoices even where privilege was not waived to the borrower
- That invoices still had to be supplied to the borrower
- What happened before escalation
- General comparator only — this decision concerns Barclays, not Rooftop. Legal fees of £6,943 were charged after possession proceedings were stopped, and the Ombudsman reviewed the confidential fee breakdown.
- How it ended
- Complaint not upheld.
- What was happening
- A complaint about the level of arrears and legal fees added to a mortgage account administered by Rooftop Mortgages Limited. Rooftop had already removed £230 of fees. The adjudicator recommended a further £250 be removed. The Ombudsman identified one additional monthly arrears management fee of £50, applied in July 2010, and ordered a total of £300 of charges to be reversed.
- What mattered to the Ombudsman
- Whether the full contractual monthly payment had been made in the month a fee was applied
- That a fee applied the day after the contractual payment was made could not stand
- That the business had already removed £230 before the decision
- What happened before escalation
- The decision concerns arrears management and legal fees applied between 2009 and 2012, including fees referable to court proceedings; the steps taken before enforcement were not in issue.
- How it ended
- Complaint upheld. Rooftop Mortgages Limited ordered to reverse £300 of charges, in addition to the £230 it had already removed.
The same cases as a table
For readers comparing one step across every decision.
Swipe the table sideways to see every column.
| Decision | Current financial information obtained | Enquiries about the property | Time allowed for a sale | Fees or interest suspended | Solicitors formally instructed | Receiver identified to the borrower | Alternatives to enforcement considered | Action paused during the complaint | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DRN-6064258Several informal term extensions were given after term expiry before a formal demand was issued. | Recorded | Recorded | Recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | n/a | Recorded | Not recorded | Not upheld |
| DRN-5818655The decision concerns property disposals and responsibility for the acts of the receiver. | Not recorded | Recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not upheld |
| DRN-5886207General comparator only — this decision concerns Pepper / Engage Credit, not Rooftop. Legal fees and interest on those fees connected with pre-action correspondence were ordered removed. | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Recorded | n/a | Not recorded | Not recorded | Upheld |
| DRN-5586287Enforcement began in March 2024 and was held off in April 2024 so the property could be remarketed; the Ombudsman recorded that this saved further receiver and solicitor costs. | Recorded | Recorded | Recorded | Not recorded | Recorded | n/a | Recorded | Not recorded | Not upheld |
| DRN-5590016The decision concerns receiver costs and the information provided about receiver activity. | Not recorded | Recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Recorded | Recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not upheld |
| DRN-5655816General comparator only — this decision concerns Barclays, not Rooftop. The bank's solicitors sent a notice to quit and legal fees were added to the mortgage balance. | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Recorded | n/a | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not upheld |
| DRN-5223166The Ombudsman considered that substantial forbearance had been shown before receivers were appointed. | Recorded | Recorded | Recorded | Not recorded | Recorded | Recorded | Recorded | Not recorded | Not upheld |
| DRN-4702049The decision records payments from the borrowers and the DWP, an overpayment balance eroded as rates rose, and arrears charges that Rooftop had already reversed before the decision. | Recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | n/a | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not upheld |
| DRN-4759894Interest and payments were frozen while a documentary problem was resolved and no recovery action was taken pending the final decision. | Not recorded | Not recorded | n/a | Recorded | Recorded | n/a | Recorded | Recorded | Not upheld |
| DRN-4964739The decision concerns Rooftop paying disputed leasehold service charges after a county court judgment and adding the payment to the mortgage balance; no enforcement by Rooftop was in issue. | Not recorded | Not recorded | n/a | Not recorded | Not recorded | n/a | Not recorded | n/a | Not upheld |
| DRN-4705467LPA receivers appointed by Rooftop marketed the property, put it into two auctions and sold it, leaving a shortfall of £69,800.45; the complaint about the sale itself could not be considered against Rooftop because the receivers acted as the borrower's agent. | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not upheld |
| DRN-4575956Rooftop carried out a new income and expenditure assessment before accepting a shortfall settlement proposal; the decision turned on whether that assessment was needed before it could answer. | Recorded | Not recorded | n/a | Not recorded | Not recorded | n/a | Recorded | Not recorded | Not upheld |
| DRN-3955250This decision concerns the treatment of overpayments after a portfolio transfer; no enforcement action was in issue. | Not recorded | Not recorded | n/a | n/a | Not recorded | n/a | Not recorded | n/a | Upheld |
| DRN-1852552The decision concerns service charge payments made after county court judgments; the Ombudsman separately reminded Rooftop of Covid-19 guidance under which possession action should not be started or re-started until after October 2020. | Not recorded | Not recorded | n/a | Not recorded | Not recorded | n/a | Not recorded | n/a | Not upheld |
| DRN5725301The decision concerns arrears fees, unpaid direct debit fees and the cost of possession proceedings; the complaint was brought through a claims management company about the charges themselves. | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Recorded | n/a | Not recorded | Not recorded | Upheld |
| DRN9682716The decision records field agent visits to the property and service charge payments made after a county court judgment and a notice of proposed forfeiture; the sums were later refunded by the management company. | Not recorded | Recorded | n/a | Not recorded | Not recorded | n/a | Not recorded | n/a | Not upheld |
| DRN6142717General comparator only — this decision concerns Barclays, not Rooftop. Legal fees of £6,943 were charged after possession proceedings were stopped, and the Ombudsman reviewed the confidential fee breakdown. | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Recorded | n/a | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not upheld |
| DRN8820419The decision concerns arrears management and legal fees applied between 2009 and 2012, including fees referable to court proceedings; the steps taken before enforcement were not in issue. | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Recorded | n/a | Not recorded | Not recorded | Upheld |
What each column asks
- Current financial information obtained
- Does the decision record the business obtaining up-to-date information about the borrower's finances?
- Enquiries about the property
- Does the decision record the business asking about the property, its letting or its condition?
- Time allowed for a sale
- Does the decision record the business allowing time for the borrower to sell?
- Fees or interest suspended
- Does the decision record fees, interest or payments being suspended at any point?
- Solicitors formally instructed
- Does the decision record solicitors being formally instructed?
- Receiver identified to the borrower
- Does the decision record the receiver being identified to the borrower?
- Alternatives to enforcement considered
- Does the decision record alternatives such as term extensions, arrangements or a sale being considered?
- Action paused during the complaint
- Does the decision record recovery action being paused while the complaint was considered?
The comparison covers every published Ombudsman decision in this archive. Most of these factors concern enforcement, receivership or a proposed sale, so decisions about fees or account administration will show "Not recorded" or "Not applicable" across most columns — that reflects what the published decision mentions, not a judgement about the case. Related reading: LPA receivers and the fairness test.