Complaint not upheldOfficial source – Financial Ombudsman23 February 2026
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.
Complaint not upheldOfficial source – Financial Ombudsman5 January 2026
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.
Complaint not upheldOfficial source – Financial Ombudsman11 November 2025
A buy-to-let mortgage held on one property within a wider portfolio. In June 2023 the borrower told Rooftop his buy-to-let business was no longer viable and that he had a buyer for the mortgaged property, but that the sale would leave a shortfall of around £15,000 which he said would be covered by the equity from the sale of another property. Rooftop declined and required full repayment on sale. The other sale did not proceed and both properties were let again. In March 2024 Rooftop started enforcement action because of the level of arrears. In April 2024 the borrower asked Rooftop to hold off, served notice on his tenants and remarketed the property. Rooftop agreed; the property sold for around £35,000 less than the asking price, leaving a shortfall of over £60,000.
Complaint not upheldOfficial source – Financial Ombudsman8 October 2024
An interest-only mortgage taken out in May 2001 transferred to Rooftop in 2019; the term ended in May 2021. In July 2022 it emerged that the title deeds could not be located and had to be reconstituted, which was completed in August 2023. During that period the interest rate was set at 0% and no payments were required. The complaint concerned the lost deeds, a legal fee, resumed payments and a refused settlement offer, and was not upheld.
Complaint not upheldOfficial source – Financial Ombudsman27 June 2024
Receivers appointed by Rooftop sold a buy-to-let property at auction, leaving £69,800.45 still owing. The borrower said a letter from Rooftop meant she no longer owed it.
Outcome: The Ombudsman did not uphold the complaint. The shortfall was still owed, and the complaint about the sale itself was not one the service could consider against Rooftop.
Complaint not upheldOfficial source – Financial Ombudsman10 May 2024
An interest-only mortgage where the borrower arranged an equity release agreement with another provider that would not cover the full balance owed to Rooftop. She asked Rooftop to accept a shortfall of roughly £14,000, initially in February 2023, and on 7 April 2023 proposed repaying it at £500 per month on an unsecured basis. She told Rooftop she needed an answer by 12 May 2023, when the equity release offer expired. Rooftop conducted a new income and expenditure assessment on 20 April 2023 and confirmed acceptance on 12 May 2023 by telephone and by email sent at 11:12 am. The borrower was unable to confirm the equity release offer in time and the replacement offer was £10,000 lower.
Complaint not upheldOfficial source – Financial Ombudsman15 September 2020
A complaint that Rooftop made payments to a managing agent claiming service charges on a leasehold property and added the cost to the mortgage balance. Rooftop had received copies of county court judgments recording that the borrower owed the managing agent money, and a copy of a section 146 notice said to have been served on her. Rooftop wrote to the borrower each time it received a request for payment. The complaint was not upheld.
Complaint not upheldOfficial source – Financial Ombudsman20 April 2019
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.
Ombudsman decision about another lenderOfficial source – Financial Ombudsman24 October 2018
A complaint against Barclays about legal fees of £6,943 charged to a shared ownership mortgage account after possession proceedings were stopped. The borrower's relatives said Barclays had refused to give a breakdown of the fees. The Ombudsman obtained and reviewed the confidential breakdown, the solicitors' charging scheme and the invoices, was satisfied that reasonable legal fees had been charged, and did not uphold the complaint.
Complaint upheldOfficial source – Financial Ombudsman3 December 2013
A complaint about the level of arrears and legal fees added to a mortgage account administered by Rooftop Mortgages Limited. Rooftop had already removed £230 of fees. The adjudicator recommended a further £250 be removed. The Ombudsman identified one additional monthly arrears management fee of £50, applied in July 2010, and ordered a total of £300 of charges to be reversed.
Borrower's own account – not verifiedPublic borrower account – not independently verified24 July 2012
A thread posted on 24 July 2012 in which a contributor describes the repossession and sale of their home and the costs applied to the account.