DRN-5590016 – Notification before LPA receiver appointment and information about receiver fees; complaint not upheld
What happened: 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.
What the Ombudsman decided: Complaint not upheld.
The published decision records that the complaint was not upheld.
What mattered to the Ombudsman
- That final demand letters had been issued warning receivers would be appointed
- That post to the correspondence address had been returned, making use of the property address reasonable
- That the receiver, though appointed by the lender, acted on the borrowers' behalf, so receiver fee questions went to the receiver
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 receiver fees are beyond challenge — only that in this complaint those questions had to be put to the receiver rather than to Rooftop.
Source details
- Source type
- Financial Ombudsman Service decision
- Source
- Financial Ombudsman Service, final decision DRN-5590016 (Ombudsman: Ben Brewer)
- Date
- 2 October 2025
- Reference
- DRN-5590016
- 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
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.
What the borrower complained about
The borrowers said Rooftop had not told one of them about important information concerning the mortgages, which they said led to receivers being appointed, and that Rooftop still would not provide important information about the accounts after the appointment. They also said Rooftop was exploiting regulatory loopholes because buy-to-let mortgages are unregulated, and raised concerns about cross-collateralisation.
What Rooftop said
Rooftop said it had sent correspondence over time setting out the arrears, issuing a final demand and confirming that a receiver was being appointed; that it had acted reasonably in seeking to verify the complainant's identity before dealing with the issues raised; and it provided a statement of fees for the accounts.
What the Ombudsman decided
The Ombudsman recorded that correspondence had been sent to one of the mortgaged property addresses after earlier post to the correspondence address was returned to sender, which was reasonable; that Rooftop was entitled to appoint a receiver when it did; and that although the receiver was appointed by Rooftop it acted on behalf of the borrowers, so questions about receiver fees had to be directed to the receiver. He also found nothing unfair in how Rooftop handled the attempt to raise the complaint.
Outcome
- Complaint not upheld.
Key extracts
“Although the LPAR had been appointed by Rooftop, it was acting on behalf of Mr and Mrs D.”
Investigator's assessment as recorded in final decision DRN-5590016
Why this record may be relevant
This decision concerns notification before a receiver appointment and where responsibility for receiver fees and conduct is said to lie.
Source
Financial Ombudsman Service, final decision DRN-5590016 (Ombudsman: Ben Brewer)
View original sourceThe date shown is the date stated in the published decision by which the consumer was required to accept or reject it.
If you believe this record is inaccurate or incomplete, see corrections and right of reply.