DRN-4759894 – Missing title deeds, a legal fee and a settlement offer; complaint not upheld
What happened: 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 the Ombudsman decided: Complaint not upheld.
The published decision records that the complaint 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
These are the factors this particular decision treated as important. Ombudsman decisions are not precedent and another case can turn out differently.
What this does not prove
It does not establish that missing deeds never cause loss, nor that a lender must always accept a reduced settlement. Both points were decided on this evidence.
Source details
- Source type
- Financial Ombudsman Service decision
- Source
- Financial Ombudsman Service, final decision DRN-4759894 (Ombudsman: Jan O'Leary)
- Date
- 8 October 2024
- Reference
- DRN-4759894
- Mortgage type
- Residential
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
- Organisations
- Rooftop Mortgages Limited
- Source quality
- Official source
- Last checked
- 2 September 2026
- Added
- 2 September 2026
What happened
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 the borrower complained about
The borrower said Rooftop could not locate the title deeds and that she lost out on a sale of the property as a result; that a legal fee had been added to the mortgage account; that she should not be expected to continue paying after the deeds were reconstituted; and that Rooftop should have accepted her offer of £30,000 in full and final settlement of a balance of over £57,000.
What Rooftop said
Rooftop said the interest rate of 9.4% applied when payments resumed was in line with the mortgage offer; that it had frozen interest and payments while the deeds were reconstituted so the borrower did not lose out; that no legal costs had been added, an invoice having been sent in error for which it paid £50 compensation; and that it required the full balance to be repaid.
What the Ombudsman decided
The Ombudsman found the evidence appeared to show Rooftop was never in possession of the deeds, that it arranged reconstitution at no cost to the borrower with interest at 0% and no payments due meanwhile, and that a statutory declaration, title indemnity policy and copy deeds were in place, so she was not persuaded the sale failed because of the missing deeds. She also recorded that the evidence did not persuade her the proposed sale was an arm's length sale.
Outcome
- Complaint not upheld.
Key extracts
“Rooftop arranged for the deeds to be reconstituted at no cost to Mrs S, and during the period this was happening, no interest was charged, and Mrs S wasn't required to make any payments.”
Ombudsman, final decision DRN-4759894
Why this record may be relevant
This decision concerns title deeds, the treatment of interest while a documentation issue was resolved, and a request for a short settlement.
Source
Financial Ombudsman Service, final decision DRN-4759894 (Ombudsman: Jan O'Leary)
View original sourceThe date shown is the date stated in the published decision by which the consumer was required to accept or reject it. Rooftop took no recovery action in relation to the outstanding balance pending the final decision, as recorded in the decision.
If you believe this record is inaccurate or incomplete, see corrections and right of reply.