DRN-6065785

The complaint Mr D’s complaint is about a portfolio of buy-to-let mortgages he holds, currently with Topaz Finance Limited trading as Jasper Mortgages. The crux of the complaint is that Mr D believes that Jasper has no contractual right to charge and retain interest on the mortgages, having failed to demonstrate the necessary entitlement to do so or provide documentary proof of that entitlement. What happened The background to this complaint is well known to both parties and is set out in the correspondence between the parties and our service, so I won’t repeat all the details here. Our decisions are published, and it’s important that I don’t include any information that might result in Mr D being identified. Instead I’ll focus on my decision and the reasons for it. No discourtesy is intended by that, and if I don’t mention something, it won’t be because I’ve ignored it, but it’s because I don’t think it is material to the outcome of the complaint. This approach is consistent our enabling legislation and the informal nature of our service. It allows me to concentrate on the issues on which I consider a fair outcome will turn, and not be side-tracked by matters which, although presented as material, are, in my opinion peripheral or which have little or no impact on the broader outcome. But I would like to reassure the parties that I’ve read and considered everything they’ve said and provided in support of their arguments. That includes Mr D’s submission addressed specifically to the reviewing ombudsman and received by us on 9 January 2026. The Investigator who considered the complaint was persuaded Jasper had acted reasonably and was fairly entitled to expect Mr D to pay interest on the mortgages. Mr D didn’t agree and asked for an Ombudsman to review the complaint. What I’ve decided – and why I’ll start with some general observations. We’re not the regulator of financial businesses, and we don’t “police” their internal processes or how they operate generally. That’s the job of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). We deal with individual disputes between businesses and their customers. In doing that, we work within the rules of the ombudsman service and the remit those rules give us. We don’t replicate the work of the courts. We’re impartial, and we don’t take either side’s instructions on how we investigate a complaint. We conduct our investigations and reach our conclusions without interference from anyone else. In doing that, we don’t replicate the work of the courts. Whilst statutory, our scheme is intended to provide swift outcomes to disputes between business and the customers, with a

-- 1 of 3 --

minimum of formality. We’re impartial, and we don’t take either side’s instructions on how we investigate a complaint. We conduct our investigations and reach our conclusions without interference from anyone else. But in doing so, we have to work within the rules of the ombudsman service, which include our jurisdiction. It’s for us, rather than the parties to the dispute, to decide what evidence we need to reach a fair outcome. It’s also for us to assess the reliability of evidence, from both sides, and decide how much weight should be attached to it. When doing that, we don’t just consider individual pieces of evidence in isolation. We consider everything together to form a broader opinion on the whole picture. Mr D has raised the question of whether his position might be affected by the fact that, prior to the transfer to Jasper. these mortgages were the subject of a securitisation exercise by the original lender (which I’ll refer to here as M). It’s not part of what I’m looking at here, but I will observe, largely for completeness, that beneficial interest in a debt (which is relevant in the case of securitisation) is very different from legal ownership of a debt. A borrower’s contractual obligation is to the legal owner of a mortgage, and here that is Jasper. I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so, it seems to me that this complaint is somewhat simpler than it has been made to look. First of all, let me make clear that I accept Mr D doesn’t dispute that he owes the underlying debts to Jasper; rather, it’s the interest on those debts that he doesn’t believe he needs to pay. Taking into account everything that both parties have said and provided, I fear Mr D may have misdirected himself. M, as original lender, didn’t need Mr D’s consent to transfer his mortgages to Jasper; that is allowed for in the terms and conditions of the original mortgages contracts Mr D entered into. All that is required is written notice. The same terms and conditions also say that in the event of a transfer taking place, the new lender (in this case Jasper) has the exact same rights as M. That position is also set out in the ‘goodbye/hello’ letters - the written notice I referenced above - issued by M and Jasper respectively at the time of the transfer, which was in 2018. In other words, Jasper can do what M could do; including: • charging interest; • expecting Mr D to pay it; • taking such recovery action as it judges commercially necessary (including, but not limited to, appointing Law of Property Act Receivers to manage the accounts) in the event he doesn’t pay; and • reporting any failure to pay with credit reference agencies. It’s clear from reading Mr D’s extensive, and often duplicated, submissions that he believes the law requires more in the way of documentary proof than the mortgage contracts, terms and conditions, and goodbye/hello letters. That’s not my view, but If he wishes to test the strict legal position, he’s free to do so by taking legal action against Jasper. My final decision won’t prejudice that in any way. That said, if Mr D is contemplating taking that step, he might wish to consider the wisdom of taking specialist legal advice rather than rely on his own research.

-- 2 of 3 --

My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. This final decision concludes the Financial Ombudsman Service’s review of this complaint. This means that we are unable to consider the complaint any further, nor enter into any discussion about it. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr D to accept or reject my decision before 25 May 2026. Jeff Parrington Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --