DRN-6217965

The complaint Mrs K complains that Bank of Ireland (UK) Plc (“BoI”) gave her wrong information about how much her monthly mortgage payments would be, after she drew down extra funds. Mrs K said her next monthly payment was much more than expected, causing hardship. What happened Mrs K told us that in October 2025 she used a flexible feature of her BoI mortgage, to draw down some additional borrowing. She said BoI advised her then that her monthly payments would be her normal amount, so she hadn’t expected them to increase. She had expected her payments to stay at about £199. Mrs K said on the same call she opted to overpay by £179 each month. Mrs K said when the next direct debit was taken for her mortgage, the payments were about four times higher than she was expecting. Mrs K said that mean she was overdrawn and had to take money from another account. Mrs K thought the difference between what she actually paid towards her mortgage in November 2025 and what she was expecting to pay, should be refunded to her. And she wanted compensation for how many times she’d had to speak to BoI to sort this out. Mrs K said she’d then arranged with BoI to extend the term of her mortgage, which brought her monthly payments down to £399, alongside her agreed overpayment. But she said even after this, BoI still took the wrong amount, and then took a while to refund the money it had overcharged. BoI said it accepted it had given Mrs K incorrect information about her future monthly payments on the call in October 2025 when she arranged to draw down extra funds from her mortgage. It had told her the new payments, with her overpayment, would be around £300. But BoI said that it was important to set this in context. It said Mrs K had already spoken to it about extra borrowing, and had been told in August 2025 that additional borrowing of £31,000 would increase her mortgage payments to approximately £900. Mrs K had a second conversation with BoI about extra borrowing later that month, where she discussed this in more detail. BoI wanted to make us aware that Mrs K said on this call that she knew any drawdown would increase her monthly payments unless she also extended the term of her mortgage. Mrs K was told then that if she was borrowing an additional £42,000 and extending the term of the mortgage by 13 years, monthly repayments would be roughly £400. BoI said it had explained the drawdown of £42,000 would need to be completed prior to extending the term, as any change to the mortgage would remove this drawdown facility. So BoI said it was against this background that Mrs K requested a drawdown of £43,000 in October 2025. And BoI said that although it had made a mistake on this call, it had then sent Mrs K a letter, dated 16 October which confirmed her new payments would be £1,422.60 per month.

-- 1 of 3 --

BoI said because it was aware Mrs K wanted to extend her mortgage term, it had tried to contact her on multiple occasions in October to complete that application. It hadn’t been able to speak to her, but it had left messages for her, so she knew it was trying to get in touch. In November BoI collected the higher monthly mortgage payment of £1,422.60. When Mrs K complained, BoI apologised for the one instance of misinformation on the call, and paid £200 in compensation for any distress caused. BoI then completed the application for Mrs K to extend her mortgage term, and her monthly payments have now been reduced. BoI said it felt Mrs K’s request for a refund of everything over the amount she’d been given on the October call, was unreasonable given how much more money she had borrowed. BoI said it believed the payment it had made of £200 compensation to be fair given the error caused. It understood Mrs K had had a loss of expectation in terms of what her repayments would be, but said its error had not caused financial loss. Our investigator didn’t think this complaint should be upheld. He noted that Mrs K had previously discussed with BoI the impact on her mortgage of using the additional drawdown facility. And the mistake BoI made over the phone was then corrected in its letter. He understood Mrs K said she hadn’t received the letter, but said that wouldn’t be BoI’s fault. He said BoI also tried a number of times in October to reach Mrs K, to complete an application to extend the term of her mortgage which would’ve reduced her monthly payments. Our investigator thought BoI’s offer was fair in these circumstances. He didn’t think our service could reasonably ask BoI to pay more. He thought Mrs K ought to have been expecting that her payments would increase substantially, in line with the previous advice she’d received. Our investigator said our service couldn’t look at the issues raised by a larger payment taken by BoI, on 10 December 2025, after this complaint came to our service. He said Mrs K had to complain about this to BoI first, and give BoI a chance to put things right, before our service could look at that for her. Mrs K replied to disagree. She didn’t think we’d taken full account of the circumstances of what occurred. She said we hadn’t given enough weight to the misinformation she’d been given, and flagged that she hadn’t previously discussed borrowing this exact amount, so hadn’t been given any earlier indication of how much this particular borrowing would cost each month. She repeated that she didn’t get BoI’s letter, but also said that a letter sent out after a mistake was made didn’t negate the mistake. Mrs K said the payment of £200 didn’t make up for the impact an unexpected direct debit of over £1,400 had on her. But our investigator didn’t change his mind, he still felt earlier calls had warned Mrs K her repayments would increase significantly without an extension to her mortgage term. Because no agreement was reached, this case came to me for a final decision. 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. I’ve reached the same overall conclusion on this complaint as our investigator.

-- 2 of 3 --

I have listened to the call Mrs K had with BoI on 14 October 2025, when she arranged to draw down a large extra amount from her mortgage. And I can hear that BoI didn’t confirm that her monthly payments would change. I do think BoI ought to have told Mrs K that her normal monthly payment was going to increase, especially as it actioned Mrs K’s request for a regular monthly overpayment of £173 which it referred to as “on top of your normal monthly mortgage payment of £125”. Referring to her previous monthly payment, just after she had arranged a large amount of additional borrowing, was unclear and unhelpful. So I agree that BoI made a mistake on this call. But I also think it’s important to set this call in context. I’ve listened to the two previous calls Mrs K had with BoI in August, and I felt Mrs K had demonstrated a good understanding at that time about the position of her mortgage, as well as the impact of further borrowing on her monthly payments. She already had a plan of how to manage those higher payments – she proposed to extend the term of her mortgage. I also note that after Mrs K used the drawdown facility, BoI then confirmed Mrs K’s monthly payment in writing for her. I know Mrs K says this doesn’t negate the earlier mistake, but I do think BoI should be allowed to correct the mistake it made here. It’s unfortunate if this letter wasn’t safely received and read by Mrs K, but like our investigator, I don’t think that is BoI’s fault. I understand Mrs K would be disappointed to see her mortgage payments rise so considerably after the call on 14 October, and I appreciate she’s said this caused financial hardship. But, until the term extension was agreed with BoI, I think it would have been reasonable for Mrs K to assume her monthly mortgage payments would be quite a bit higher, particularly given the previous, relatively recent, conversations she’d had with BoI about this. I can see that when Mrs K contacted BoI with her concerns about the much higher payment taken in November, BoI offered Mrs K a number of other options, if she wasn’t able to manage. It offered to take the drawn down funds back, which would revert her monthly payments to the previous level. Or it offered a payment holiday, or a reduced payment plan. I have to bear in mind that Mrs K didn’t wish to take up any of these options. And indeed, notes from the time say that Mrs K told BoI she was not struggling financially. I can see BoI said then that she should call back if she started to have difficulties. Given all of the above circumstances, I do think the payment of £200 that BoI has made in this case, provides a fair and reasonable outcome to this complaint. I know Mrs K will be disappointed, but I don’t think BoI has to pay more than that. Mrs K also said that BoI made a further mistake, and overcharged her for her December mortgage payment too. As our investigator noted, our service has to give BoI a chance to put things right before we can look into this for Mrs K. So I won’t consider that issue here. Mrs K can complain to BoI about this if she would like to. My final decision I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs K to accept or reject my decision before 25 May 2026. Esther Absalom-Gough Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --