Financial Ombudsman Service
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.
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.
Issue
Mortgage type
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Still to obtain:
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.
Still to obtain:
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.
Still to obtain:
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.
Still to obtain:
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.
Still to obtain:
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.
Still to obtain:
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.
Still to obtain:
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.
Still to obtain:
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.
Still to obtain:
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.
Still to obtain:
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.