DRN-6064258 – Buy-to-let term expiry, formal demand and rejected repayment proposals; complaint not upheld
What happened: An unregulated interest-only buy-to-let mortgage of a little over £111,000 taken out in early 2007 with another lender and transferred to Rooftop Mortgages Limited in 2016. The term expired in 2022 and the borrower could not repay. Rooftop agreed a number of informal term extensions. In March 2025 it issued a formal demand. The borrower proposed selling the mortgaged property at a likely price of £75,000, paying a £5,000 lump sum from savings and repaying part of the residue from the sale of a second property expected sometime in 2026. Rooftop rejected those proposals. The complaint was not upheld.
What the Ombudsman decided: Complaint not upheld. No order or award made against Rooftop Mortgages Limited.
The published decision records that the complaint was not upheld.
What mattered to the Ombudsman
- That the borrower had already received several years of informal extensions and forbearance
- That the proposed repayment route was open-ended, depending on a second sale expected at an uncertain future date
- That the proposals would still have left a shortfall of around £19,000
- That responsibility for the fairness of the lending relationship transferred with the mortgage in 2016
- That the test applied is whether the lender's decision was unfair, not whether it was unwelcome
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 a lender may always refuse a sale proposal, nor that the 2007 lending was sound by today's standards. The Ombudsman assessed it against the standards prevalent at the time for unregulated buy-to-let lending.
Source details
- Source type
- Financial Ombudsman Service decision
- Source
- Financial Ombudsman Service, final decision DRN-6064258 (Ombudsman: Jeff Parrington)
- Date
- 23 February 2026
- Reference
- DRN-6064258
- 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
An unregulated interest-only buy-to-let mortgage of a little over £111,000 taken out in early 2007 with another lender and transferred to Rooftop Mortgages Limited in 2016. The term expired in 2022 and the borrower could not repay. Rooftop agreed a number of informal term extensions. In March 2025 it issued a formal demand. The borrower proposed selling the mortgaged property at a likely price of £75,000, paying a £5,000 lump sum from savings and repaying part of the residue from the sale of a second property expected sometime in 2026. Rooftop rejected those proposals. The complaint was not upheld.
What the borrower complained about
The borrower said his proposals offered the best chance of repaying most of the debt and that any alternative course would leave him with a larger shortfall. He also said the mortgage had been mis-sold and irresponsibly lent in 2007, on the basis of an over-valuation of a new-build flat, and that his income had been overstated on the application form.
What Rooftop said
Rooftop gave its reasons for rejecting the proposals as: the time extensions it had already provided; the uncertainty over when the payment from the sale of the second property would be made; that the proposals would still leave a shortfall of around £19,000; and that the borrower's obligation was to pay the debt in full within a reasonable time. It had already apologised for a letter sent in February 2025.
What the Ombudsman decided
The Ombudsman recorded that responsibility for the fairness of the ongoing lending relationship transferred to Rooftop with the mortgage in 2016, so he could consider whether the 2006 valuation and 2007 lending decision left a relationship that is currently unfair. He found they did not: the lender was entitled to rely on a qualified valuer, and the self-certified lending decision met the standards prevalent at the time for unregulated buy-to-let lending. On Rooftop's conduct since term expiry, he found the borrower had been seeking and receiving forbearance for several years and that Rooftop was not obliged to continue indefinitely; that Rooftop had not disregarded the proposals but lacked confidence in them given their open-endedness; and that this was unwelcome but not unfair, which was the test he had to apply. He described a letter sent in February 2025 as ill-considered and recorded that Rooftop had rightly apologised for it.
Outcome
- Complaint not upheld. No order or award made against Rooftop Mortgages Limited.
Key extracts
“when the mortgage was transferred from P to RML in 2016, responsibility for ensuring the fairness of the ongoing lending relationship was also carried over to RML”
Ombudsman, final decision DRN-6064258
“RML hasn't disregarded Mr L's proposals; rather it seems to me that it lacks confidence in them.”
Ombudsman, final decision DRN-6064258
“I fully appreciate that Mr L would find that unwelcome, but it's not unfair, which is the test I have to apply.”
Ombudsman, final decision DRN-6064258
Why this record may be relevant
This decision concerns what happens after a buy-to-let term expires, how repayment and sale proposals are assessed, and the transfer of responsibility for the fairness of the lending relationship on a portfolio transfer.
Source
Financial Ombudsman Service, final decision DRN-6064258 (Ombudsman: Jeff Parrington)
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.