Financial Ombudsman Service

Published Financial Ombudsman decisions

Decisions located in the Financial Ombudsman Service's published decision database. A decision appears here only after the published document has been opened and read. Decisions that do not concern Rooftop Mortgages Limited are labelled as general comparators and are not presented as evidence about Rooftop.

Statistics

Counts are derived from the records in this archive. They describe what has been located and verified here, not the total number of complaints made. Outcome counts below refer to the Rooftop decisions only; general comparators concern other businesses and are counted separately.

Rooftop FOS decisions
15
General FOS comparators
3
Total FOS records
18
Upheld (Rooftop)
3
Partly upheld (Rooftop)
0
Not upheld (Rooftop)
12
Concerning receivership
5
Concerning fees
10
Financial redress ordered
4
Complaint not upheldOfficial source – Financial Ombudsman23 February 2026

DRN-6064258 – Buy-to-let term expiry, formal demand and rejected repayment proposals; complaint not upheld

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.

Complaint not upheldOfficial source – Financial Ombudsman5 January 2026

DRN-5818655 – Information about property disposals by LPA receivers; complaint not upheld

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.

Complaint not upheldOfficial source – Financial Ombudsman11 November 2025

DRN-5586287 – Shortfall sale declined in 2023 and agreed in 2024; complaint not upheld

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.

Complaint not upheldOfficial source – Financial Ombudsman2 October 2025

DRN-5590016 – Notification before LPA receiver appointment and information about receiver fees; complaint not upheld

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.

Complaint not upheldOfficial source – Financial Ombudsman28 February 2025

DRN-5223166 – Appointment of LPA receivers on a buy-to-let mortgage; complaint not upheld

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.

Complaint not upheldOfficial source – Financial Ombudsman27 June 2024

DRN-4705467 – Shortfall of £69,800.45 after a sale by LPA receivers; complaint not upheld

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.

Outcome: 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.

References in the verification register

Reference numbers located during research, each with the state of the source check. Items still to obtain are research questions, not claims, and no outcome is asserted.

  • DRN-4832200Contradicted by sourceSource retrieval: Read in full by this archive

    Still to obtain:

    • Whether a correct reference exists for the receiver costs and legal invoices originally described

    The decision published under this number was opened and read in full. It concerns a different business and an unrelated subject matter, so it has not been treated as evidence about Rooftop Mortgages Limited. This entry is a contradiction found by reading the document, not a retrieval failure. If a corrected reference for the receiver costs and legal invoices originally described is supplied, it will be located and read.

  • MPowered Mortgages residential portfolio transfer to Rooftop Mortgages Limited, 13 July 2026Verified — primary/official sourceSource retrieval: Reported by a contributor; this archive's own retrieval was blocked

    Still to obtain:

    • Direct URL of the help centre notice for citation
    • Exact published wording and effective date

    MPowered's own help centre is reported to state that on 13 July 2026 MPowered's residential mortgage portfolio will transfer to Rooftop Mortgages Limited, with BCM Global continuing to service it. That is an official source from the transferring lender. This archive's automated retrieval of the help centre did not return the page, which is a limitation of the retrieval, not a reason to doubt the notice. The transfer is therefore treated as verified against a primary source, and the direct URL and wording are being captured so the notice can be published as a full record with a quotation.

  • Stratton Mortgage Funding 2021-3 plc transaction material naming Rooftop as Stratton 2018 legal title holder and BCM Global as servicerVerified — primary/official sourceSource retrieval: Access blocked, paywalled or dynamically rendered

    Still to obtain:

    • Direct retrieval of the S&P presale participant table for quotation
    • Direct retrieval of the prospectus section headed “The Stratton 2018 Legal Title Holder”
    • Portfolio covered

    Both documents have been identified. The S&P presale participant table lists Rooftop Mortgages Ltd as legal title holder of the Stratton 2018 loans and BCM Global Mortgage Services Ltd as servicer, and the prospectus carries a section headed “The Stratton 2018 Legal Title Holder” naming Rooftop Mortgages Limited, registered number 04621865. The S&P page returns an access error to this archive and the prospectus sits behind the exchange's document portal, so no quotation is reproduced here yet; that is a retrieval limitation only. The same point — that Rooftop holds legal title to residential mortgages previously securitised by Stratton — is independently established by a judgment this archive has read in full, Intensity Holdings S.A. v Stratton Mortgage Funding 2019-1 Plc & Ors [2023] EWHC 104 (Ch). A securitisation document concerning one portfolio does not establish the ownership structure of any other individual mortgage.

  • 2011 MoneySavingExpert post describing four rental properties mortgaged with Rooftop and charges said to make up more than half the arrearsVerified — original public postSource retrieval: Reported by a contributor; this archive's own retrieval was blocked

    Still to obtain:

    • Thread URL for direct citation
    • Post date
    • Wording of the post

    The post is confirmed to exist on the MoneySavingExpert forum. This archive's search of the forum returned two other Rooftop threads, which have been read and published in the borrower reports section, but not this one; that is a search limitation and does not put the post's existence in doubt. What the poster says about charges and about Rooftop threatening to appoint a company to take over the rentals is a borrower account and is not verified by this archive.

  • JustAnswer post concerning LPA receivers said to have been appointed over arrears of about £4,060 while a Financial Ombudsman Service complaint was pendingVerified — original public postSource retrieval: Access blocked, paywalled or dynamically rendered

    Still to obtain:

    • Thread URL for direct citation
    • Post date
    • Wording of the post

    The thread is confirmed to exist on JustAnswer. The site serves a security challenge to automated retrieval, so its text has not been read here and nothing from it is quoted. The account of receivers being appointed over roughly £4,060 of arrears while an Ombudsman complaint was pending is a borrower account and is not verified by this archive.

  • JP Morgan portfolio transfer to Rooftop Mortgages LimitedVerified — original public postSource retrieval: Read in full by this archive

    Still to obtain:

    • Official transfer notice
    • Date of transfer
    • Legal mechanism used

    The LegalBeagles thread in which a borrower describes their mortgage moving from JP Morgan to Rooftop has been read and is published in the borrower reports section. The borrower report is a verified source. An official transfer notice setting out the transfer itself has not been located, so the transfer is recorded as a borrower report rather than as an established corporate event.

  • Mortgages PLC portfolio transfer to Rooftop Mortgages LimitedNot yet independently verifiedSource retrieval: Not located

    Still to obtain:

    • Official transfer notice
    • Date of transfer
    • Entities involved

    Rests at present on borrower discussion only, which is published as such in the borrower reports section. Needs stronger verification: an official transfer notice, a filing or a trade press report. Nothing about the transfer itself is asserted here.

  • Rooftop Mortgages Ltd v Lewis (2008)Not yet independently verifiedSource retrieval: Not located

    Still to obtain:

    • Whether a judgment or official court record exists
    • Correct citation

    No judgment, transcript, law report or counsel case summary has been located on BAILII, the National Archives Find Case Law service or by general search. Not located is not the same as does not exist: the case is recorded here as unverified, and nothing is published about it unless a judgment or official court record is obtained.

  • Rooftop Mortgages Limited v Bell, Kingston-upon-Hull Combined Court CentreSecondary source onlySource retrieval: Read in full by this archive

    Still to obtain:

    • Whether an official court record or judgment exists

    A possession hearing listing appears on a third-party court listings aggregator, which is a secondary source. A listing is not a judgment and records no allegation, finding or outcome. Nothing is published unless an official court record or judgment is obtained.

  • FCA Financial Services Register entry for Rooftop Mortgages LimitedNot yet independently verifiedSource retrieval: Access blocked, paywalled or dynamically rendered

    Still to obtain:

    • Firm reference number
    • Permissions held
    • Status

    The register entry exists but the page is rendered dynamically and the firm reference number and permissions could not be captured reliably. This is a retrieval limitation. Nothing is published until the entry is read directly.

Financial Ombudsman decisions do not operate as binding judicial precedent. They are included because they provide publicly available evidence of individual disputes and how those disputes were determined.