DRN-6086790

The complaint Mr H and Mrs B have complained that a letter they received from Kensington Mortgage Company Limited trading as Acenden incorrectly stated their secured loan balance as around £134,700 rather than the true balance at that time of around £11,500. They said the letter was a shock, causing upset and family disagreements, and to put things right they wanted the balance written off. What happened Mr H and Mrs B took out their secured loan in July 2006. They borrowed £15,000 on a repayment basis. The loan was taken out with a different lender and was later transferred to a new lender with Acenden appointed to administer the account. Due to arrears on the account the loan wasn’t repaid during the term. The loan term ended in March 2023, with a balance of around £10,500 outstanding. Since then, no payments have been made. On 11 December 2024 Mr H called Acenden to discuss setting an arrangement to pay. It was agreed that an income and expenditure form would be sent to him to complete. The form was sent to him the same day. Unfortunately, in the covering letter, Acenden stated the loan balance was around £134,700, rather than the true balance which was around £11,500. Mr H called Acenden on 31 December 2024. He said he’d received a letter last week stating his balance was over £100,000. Acenden apologised and gave Mr H the true balance figure of around £11,500 and he asked that be sent out to him in writing. Mr H said he wanted compensation, but he said he didn’t want to log a complaint at that time and would call back. Acenden wrote to Mr H that same day to confirm the balance on the account was around £11,500. Mr H called back on 24 January 2025 to raise the complaint. He said he wanted compensation and for the balance to be written off. Acenden responded to the complaint on 29 January 2025. It apologised for any distress that had been caused, and said it was due to human error with feedback and further training provided where needed. It said it wouldn’t write off the balance, and the full balance had become due in March 2023 when the term ended. It said it needed the income and expenditure form it had sent so it could assess the affordability of a repayment plan, and that if a repayment plan wasn’t agreed and maintained then it might commence repossession proceedings. Mr H and Mrs B referred the complaint to our service. Our Investigator said he could understand that the letter caused concerns, so he felt £150 compensation was warranted. However, he explained why he didn’t think the secured loan should be written off, or that a higher sum of compensation was due.

-- 1 of 3 --

Neither party agreed with our Investigator’s findings; Acenden didn’t think any compensation was warranted as Mr H had been given the correct figure over the phone before the letter was sent, and Mr H and Mrs B said they wanted £4,000 compensation. 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. Acenden has admitted it got things wrong here, so all I need to decide is what – if anything – needs to be done to put matters right. Acenden has said compensation isn’t warranted as Mr H was told the correct balance in the calls on 11 December 2024 and 31 December 2024. Mr H says he wants compensation in the thousands of pounds due to the problems the letter caused. I don’t agree with Acenden that no compensation is due for this. But I also don’t agree with Mr H and Mrs B that this warrants compensation in the thousands of pounds, or for the balance to be written off. The award of compensation for distress and inconvenience is fairly subjective – there’s no exact scale as it were. We have some fairly broad bandings, which we publish on our website1. When considering any distress and inconvenience caused I can only consider that in respect of the person who is eligible to complain (that is, the customer of the financial provider). Here that is Mr H and Mrs B. I’ve no power to consider any distress or inconvenience caused to any of their family, even if that was due to the matters being dealt with here. Although Mr H told our Investigator he received the letter on 12 December 2024, like our Investigator I find his testimony from the time in question to be more persuasive (rather than his recollections a year after the event). Mr H’s testimony at the time was given in the call on Tuesday 31 December 2024, and in that he said he’d received the letter the week before – so that would have been between Monday 23 December and Saturday 28 December. I’m satisfied Mr H knew the information in the letter was wrong as he’d had various conversations, and received correspondence, showing the true account balance. But that doesn’t mean the letter didn’t have an impact on Mr H and Mrs B. Even knowing the figure was wrong, it still would have been a shock to Mr H to receive that letter, especially bearing in mind his and Mrs B’s financial difficulties, the wider circumstances of the account (with previous litigation) and the time of year meaning Acenden would have had reduced opening times when the letter was received. Mr H has also told us of the problems this caused him, with his family not believing the figure was wrong and thinking the balance was a lot greater than it actually was. Our Investigator recommended compensation of £150, and having considered everything very carefully I agree with him. My final decision I uphold this complaint in part and order Kensington Mortgage Company Limited trading as Acenden to pay £150 compensation. 1 https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumers/expect/compensation-for-distress-or- inconvenience

-- 2 of 3 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr H and Mrs B to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. Julia Meadows Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --