The vast majority of mortgage ‘issues’ are resolved by way of complaint to the lender and/or the FOS. The scope for redress is substantially wider than relying on a cause of action at law.
In terms of complaint to the lender, authorised firms are required to operate effective and transparent procedures for the reasonable and prompt handling of complaints in accordance with the complaints handling rules in the FCA Handbook (DISP). The rules require the lender to treat complainants promptly and fairly (DISP 1.1).
There are special rules for handling mortgage endowment complaints (DISP App 1). The objective of redress here is to put the complainant, so far as possible, in the position he would have been in if the inappropriate advice had not been given, or the other breach had not occurred (DISP App 1.2).
Alternatively, it may be possible to complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). For jurisdiction see DISP 2.1.
The FOS is a statutory scheme established under Part XVI FSMA. It handles complaints concerning a range of mortgage issues:
• Early repayment charges
• Equity release
• Interest-only mortgages
• Mortgage arrears charges
• Mortgage shortfall
• Mortgage underfunding
• Valuations and Surveys
Significantly, the FOS has wide powers to resolve a complaint (DISP 3.5) and will determine a complaint by reference to what is, in his opinion, fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case taking into account relevant law and regulation, and also good industry practice at the relevant time (DISP 3.6).
The FOS will usually give a written determination including an award which can include money, interest or costs, or some other direction (DISP 3.6.6).
The maximum award is currently £375,000 (DISP 3.7.4). An award can be enforced through the courts. The FOS says it usually takes around 4 months to allocate cases, or 9-12 months if the complaint is particularly complex.
If an award is accepted by a complainant, it is final and binding, and gives rise to a res judicata (Clark v In Focus Asset Management & Tax Solutions Ltd
[2014] EWCA Civ 118).
Apart from the complaints procedure, or any separate common law cause of action, a contravention by an authorised person of a rule made by the FCA is actionable in damages at the suit of a private person
who suffers loss as a result (subject to any defences that apply to actions for breach of statutory duty) (s 138D(2) FSMA).
For private person
see Reg 3 of the FSMA 2000 (Rights of Action) Regulations 2001.
For a list of rules in MCOB which are actionable in damages, see MCOB Sched 5. For an example of a case involving claims for breach of common law, contractual and statutory duties, see Mason v Godiva Mortgages Ltd
[2018] EWHC 3227 (QB).
Contravention of a rule does not make any transaction void or unenforceable (s 138E(2)) and is not a defence to a claim for possession (Thakker v Northern Rock Asset Management Plc
[2014] EWHC 2107 (QB)).
Nor does the existence of the statutory duty give rise to a co-extensive duty of care at common law (Green v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc
[2013] EWCA Civ 1197).