DRN-5818655 – Information about property disposals by LPA receivers; complaint not upheld
What happened: 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.
What the Ombudsman decided: Complaint not upheld.
The published decision records that the complaint was not upheld.
What mattered to the Ombudsman
- That these were unregulated buy-to-let mortgages, so MCOB and the Consumer Duty did not apply
- That whether a business acted unlawfully is for the courts, not the Ombudsman
- That matters already dealt with in separate complaints were not reopened
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 decide whether the disposals were handled properly, or whether the receivers should have been appointed. Those questions were not examined in this decision.
Source details
- Source type
- Financial Ombudsman Service decision
- Source
- Financial Ombudsman Service, final decision DRN-5818655 (Ombudsman: Julia Meadows)
- Date
- 5 January 2026
- Reference
- DRN-5818655
- 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
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.
What the borrower complained about
The borrowers complained of a failure to provide information on the disposal of properties, ongoing inaction regarding the remaining properties, breach of the Consumer Duty and MCOB 13.3, financial and personal impact of the receivers' inaction, and being held liable for council tax and other charges while the receivers were in possession. They asked for full information on sale prices, parties and allocation of proceeds, and a timetable for the remaining sales.
What Rooftop said
Rooftop initially said the matters raised were for the receivers and provided their contact details. In its complaint response of 13 May 2025 it enclosed a completion statement for one property, said the second was under offer and the third awaiting auction appraisal, and said further information and any response about the receivers' conduct had to come from the receivers.
What the Ombudsman decided
The Ombudsman recorded that the mortgages were unregulated buy-to-let mortgages, so MCOB and the Consumer Duty did not apply and were not relevant considerations, and that it is for the courts, not this service, to say whether a business has acted unlawfully. She did not comment on matters dealt with in earlier or separate complaints, including whether Rooftop had the right to appoint the receivers, and did not uphold the complaint.
Outcome
- Complaint not upheld.
Key extracts
“Mr D and Mrs D's mortgages were unregulated BTL mortgages. That means the rules and guidance set out by the Financial Conduct Authority in MCOB, and the provisions set out in the Consumer Duty, don't apply as those only apply to regulated mortgage contracts.”
Ombudsman, final decision DRN-5818655
Why this record may be relevant
This decision concerns information about property disposals under receivership and the regulatory scope that applies to unregulated buy-to-let lending.
Source
Financial Ombudsman Service, final decision DRN-5818655 (Ombudsman: Julia Meadows)
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.