Complaint not upheldOfficial source – Financial Ombudsman23 February 2026
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
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
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
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.
Ombudsman decision about another lenderOfficial source – Financial Ombudsman14 August 2025
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.
Complaint not upheldOfficial source – Financial Ombudsman28 February 2025
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 Ombudsman11 October 2024
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.
Complaint not upheldOfficial source – Financial Ombudsman8 October 2024
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.
Complaint not upheldOfficial source – Financial Ombudsman11 September 2024
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.
Complaint not upheldOfficial source – Financial Ombudsman27 June 2024
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.
Complaint not upheldOfficial source – Financial Ombudsman10 May 2024
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.
Complaint not upheldOfficial source – Financial Ombudsman15 September 2020
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.
Complaint not upheldOfficial source – Financial Ombudsman20 April 2019
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.
Ombudsman decision about another lenderOfficial source – Financial Ombudsman24 October 2018
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.