DRN-6052155

The complaint Mr J complains that Santander UK Plc caused his house sale to fall through. He said he later received a rebate – and if that had been applied at the time in question the sale would not have fallen through. What happened Mr J has an interest only mortgage with Santander. The term ended in 2022. In 2022, Mr J arranged to sell the mortgaged property. But he was unable to go ahead because the proceeds of the sale were not enough to repay the mortgage balance. Mr J complained about that, and we issued a final decision on that complaint in 2023. In 2025, Santander wrote to Mr J. It said that it should have given him a lower interest rate on his mortgage between October 2019 and December 2022. Santander reduced the arrears balance of Mr J’s mortgage by over £40,000 to put him in the position he would have been in had the interest rate been lower. Mr J complains that if Santander had given him the lower interest rate the sale would not have fallen through in 2022. He said that the shortfall was only around £8,000 in 2022 – so if the balance had been reduced by the amount of the rebate the sale would have gone ahead. The investigator said we should not look at any complaint we’d considered previously. But she did not think that the sale would necessarily have completed even if the balance had been lower – and Mr J had the opportunity to pursue a sale at shortfall if he wished. Mr J did not accept what the investigator said. He responded to make a number of points, including: • This was a new complaint hat had nothing to do with the previous complaint – the rebate had not been made at the time of the previous complaint. • Santander has accepted it was at fault by making the rebate. It had not acted in line with MCOB or the FCA’s Principles. • He needs an amended redemption statement to understand how his account would have looked at the time of the sale in October 2022. Santander’s refusal to do so prevents transparency and obstructs his ability to assess the full financial impact of this matter. • The aborted sale caused a financial loss, ongoing mortgage costs and stress. He lost the opportunity to sell the property because of Santander’s error. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.

-- 1 of 2 --

This complaint is about the sale that did not go through in 2022. In 2023, a colleague issued a final decision that dealt with the aborted sale and Santander’s involvement in that. We would only reconsider matters if there was material new evidence that I think would likely affect the outcome of the complaint that has subsequently become available to the complainant. I don’t think there is new evidence here. But the points Mr J makes relate to a new event – the rebate made by Santander in 2025. I consider we can look at that. Mr J’s point is that if Santander had treated him fairly, he’d have been on the lower interest rate from 2019. Therefore, his mortgage balance would have been lower and that meant his sale would have gone through as there would have been no shortfall. I think we can look at that. But I’m afraid I don’t think that complaint has any prospect of success. It is not in dispute that Santander did not treat Mr J fairly by not giving him a lower interest rate. But I do not have enough evidence to conclude that the 2022 sale would have gone ahead – even if the mortgage balance was lower. Mr J had not exchanged contracts for the sale, so it may not have gone ahead for any number of reasons. I understand why Mr J feels that things would have turned out differently had he been treated fairly from the outset. But I hope he can understand why I couldn’t fairly make that conclusion. I can’t see why Santander could reasonably be required to produce an updated redemption statement backdated to October 2022 that reflected the rebate. Mr J did not redeem his mortgage at that time, and I’ve explained that there is not enough evidence to support that the sale would have gone ahead, even if he’d been given the lower rate. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr J to accept or reject my decision before 25 May 2026. Ken Rose Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --