DRN9682716 – Service charges paid after a forfeiture notice, field agent visits and disputed arrears; complaint not upheld
What happened: A leasehold mortgage originally taken out with another lender and later transferred to Rooftop. Rooftop paid service charges claimed by a management company after receiving a county court judgment and, later, a notice of proposed forfeiture, and charged a fee for making those payments. It also asked the borrower to pay arrears said to have been capitalised by the previous lender and sent field agents to visit. The management company later accepted that its notice was incorrect in parts and refunded the money paid by Rooftop, which put the account back into the position it would have been in. The complaint was not upheld.
What the Ombudsman decided: Complaint not upheld. The sums paid had already been refunded to Rooftop by the management company and the account adjusted.
The published decision records that the complaint was not upheld.
What mattered to the Ombudsman
- That the lender believed the forfeiture notice was valid at the time, the defects only emerging much later
- That payment followed either a court judgment or a notice of proposed forfeiture, with a chance to object first
- That the money had since been refunded and the account put back into position
- That it is not the Ombudsman's role to tell a lender when to issue possession proceedings
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 the notice relied on was valid — the managing agent later accepted parts of it were wrong. It decides only that acting on it at the time was not unfair.
Source details
- Source type
- Financial Ombudsman Service decision
- Source
- Financial Ombudsman Service, final decision DRN9682716 (Ombudsman: Claire Sharp)
- Date
- 20 April 2019
- Reference
- DRN9682716
- 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
A leasehold mortgage originally taken out with another lender and later transferred to Rooftop. Rooftop paid service charges claimed by a management company after receiving a county court judgment and, later, a notice of proposed forfeiture, and charged a fee for making those payments. It also asked the borrower to pay arrears said to have been capitalised by the previous lender and sent field agents to visit. The management company later accepted that its notice was incorrect in parts and refunded the money paid by Rooftop, which put the account back into the position it would have been in. The complaint was not upheld.
What the borrower complained about
The borrower, through her representative, said Rooftop unfairly and unreasonably paid service charges on her behalf when it knew she was in dispute and there was no court order requiring her to pay. She wanted a refund, wanted Rooftop to sue the landlord or agent to recover the money, and said Rooftop should 'stop messing' and issue possession proceedings if it truly believed she was in arrears. Her representative also argued the notice relied on was not valid.
What Rooftop said
Rooftop said the mortgage terms required ground rent and service charges to be paid or its security could be lost; that it paid only after receiving a county court judgment and, separately, a notice of proposed forfeiture; that it charged a fee for making such payments; that a field agent visit was made partly to discuss the service charge issue; and that it had no way of knowing the forfeiture notice was defective.
What the Ombudsman decided
The Ombudsman found Rooftop acted fairly and reasonably in believing the notice was valid, the errors in it not having been identified until much later. She recorded that it is not unfair or unreasonable for lenders to make such payments to protect security, provided the consumer is given an opportunity to object and payment is not made until either a court judgment or a notice of proposed forfeiture is received, and that Rooftop had done this. On the arrears, she could not see that Rooftop had acted unfairly, and recorded that it is not the role of this service to tell lenders when to issue possession proceedings. The adjudicator had earlier recorded that the outstanding arrears were outstanding fees which had not been capitalised.
Outcome
- Complaint not upheld. The sums paid had already been refunded to Rooftop by the management company and the account adjusted.
Key extracts
“it isn't unfair or unreasonable for lenders to make the payments to protect the security, provided that the consumer is given an opportunity to object and payment isn't made until either a court judgment or notice of proposed forfeiture is received”
Ombudsman, final decision DRN9682716
“it isn't the role of this service to tell lenders when to issue possession proceedings”
Ombudsman, final decision DRN9682716
Why this record may be relevant
This decision concerns service charge payments, the fee charged for making them, field agent visits and disputed capitalised arrears following a portfolio transfer.
Source
Financial Ombudsman Service, final decision DRN9682716 (Ombudsman: Claire Sharp)
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.