DRN-5223166 – Appointment of LPA receivers on a buy-to-let mortgage; complaint not upheld
What happened: 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.
What the Ombudsman decided: Complaint not upheld.
The published decision records that the complaint was not upheld.
What mattered to the Ombudsman
- The length of time the borrowers had been given to resolve the position before receivers were appointed
- That the lender could have started possession action earlier than it did
- That the correspondence explained consequences rather than being designed to intimidate
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 appointing receivers is always fair, and it does not decide the discrimination allegation as a matter of law — that is for a court, not the Ombudsman.
Source details
- Source type
- Financial Ombudsman Service decision
- Source
- Financial Ombudsman Service, final decision DRN-5223166 (Ombudsman: Derry Baxter)
- Date
- 28 February 2025
- Reference
- DRN-5223166
- Mortgage type
- Buy to let
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
- Organisations
- Rooftop Mortgages Limited
- Source quality
- Official source
- Last checked
- 2 September 2026
- Added
- 2 September 2026
What happened
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.
What the borrower complained about
The borrowers said the appointment of LPA receivers was unnecessary, that Rooftop's decision to take action might amount to unlawful discrimination because they are elderly and their tenant would have been classed as vulnerable, that Rooftop's correspondence amounted to bullying, and, in their words, that Rooftop was 'trying an asset grab through bullying and illegal acts'. They also said they had repeatedly asked for a breakdown of the charges and fees applied.
What the Ombudsman decided
The Ombudsman found that Rooftop had shown considerable forbearance in the time it allowed the borrowers to resolve the position themselves, noting it could have started repossession action much earlier than the date it appointed the LPA receivers. He found the correspondence set out what might happen if the position did not improve, which was what he would expect, and saw nothing indicating it was designed to upset or bully. On the requests for a breakdown of charges, he suggested the borrowers set out a simple list of the information they wanted.
Outcome
- Complaint not upheld.
Key extracts
“I am satisfied that Rooftop showed considerable forbearance in giving Mr and Mrs S the amount of time it did to sort out the situation with the mortgage for themselves.”
Ombudsman, final decision DRN-5223166
Why this record may be relevant
This decision concerns the steps taken before LPA receivers were appointed on a buy-to-let mortgage in arrears.
Source
Financial Ombudsman Service, final decision DRN-5223166 (Ombudsman: Derry Baxter)
View original sourceThe date shown is the date stated in the published decision by which the consumer was required to accept or reject it. The words quoted under allegations are the borrowers' own words as recorded in the published decision.
If you believe this record is inaccurate or incomplete, see corrections and right of reply.