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.
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 upheldOfficial source – Financial Ombudsman12 October 2019
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.
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.
Complaint upheldOfficial source – Financial Ombudsman3 December 2013
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.
Borrower's own account – not verifiedPublic borrower account – not independently verified1 September 2012
A thread started in September 2012 by a contributor describing the appointment of receivers over a let flat.