DRN-6240144

The complaint Mr I and Mrs W have been very unhappy with how a mortgage they previously held, which resulted in a shortfall sale, has been managed. In this complaint, they challenge actions that Topaz Finance Limited trading as Hyalite Mortgages has taken to ask them to pay this debt. What happened Mr I and Mrs W previously owned a property which was mortgaged. They experienced financial difficulties. The mortgage lender secured a money and possession judgment against Mr I and Mrs W, and the property was sold in 2014. The proceeds of sale satisfied most of the money judgment, but unfortunately left a shortfall of just under £15,000. This mortgage shortfall debt is now managed by Topaz. Mr I and Mrs W have made previous complaints to our service. In 2024 they complained about issues going back to when the property was taken into possession and sold. Our service set out then the reasons why we were not able to consider a substantial part of their complaint. I do not propose to reopen those matters here, or the matters then dealt with in their 2025 complaint. In this complaint, Mr I and Mrs W said Topaz had sent a field agent to visit their home, on 24 October 2025. They said this visit wasn’t authorised or invited, and they wanted Topaz to amend their records to provide that contact with them should be in writing only (and by letter, unless they expressly consented to email). They also wanted Topaz stop processing their data for the purposes of any home visits. They said any future visits to their property would be treated as trespass and as unfair, oppressive conduct. When they referred this complaint to our service, Mr I and Mrs W said Topaz had also used misleading “CCJ” wording in collection correspondence, implying that it had obtained a new county court judgment. But they said when challenged, Topaz had only provided an old 2014 judgment for possession and money. They also said Topaz was relying on field agent visit records which were demonstrably inaccurate. The field agents claimed to have visited on three occasions, on dates which didn’t match data from Mr I and Mrs W’s video doorbell. Mr I and Mrs W said there had been only one agent visit, and it happened on a different date. Mr I and Mrs W said although our service had previously found Topaz had carried out unauthorised credit searches, Topaz had now carried out a fresh credit check, and their credit scores had dropped. Mr I and Mrs W said Topaz wasn’t treating them fairly or communicating clearly. It was just trying to ramp up the pressure on them to pay. Mr I and Mrs W wanted our service to take a number of steps related to censuring Topaz for previous actions and restricting what Topaz may do to pursue this debt in the future. They wanted: - all doorstep visits stopped immediately, - a formal correction of the misleading impression that a new county court judgment had been recently obtained,

-- 1 of 5 --

- full details of the instructions to field agents and reports they had supplied, plus correction of any inaccurate records of visits, - credit searches removed and no further searches carried out, and - compensation with a written apology. Topaz said it does have the right to share information with its representatives, and that included field agents and solicitors. It had written to Mr I and Mrs W explaining what to do if they did not want its field agent to visit. Topaz referred Mr I and Mrs W to its published policies on how their data would be used. Topaz said that it hadn’t intended to intimidate Mr I and Mrs W. But it said it did need to speak to them about the outstanding debt on their mortgage. It said its next steps would be to instruct solicitors to secure the debt, and it had to make Mr I and Mrs W aware of this. Our investigator didn’t think this complaint should be upheld. He said he couldn’t revisit any issues previously referred to our service. His investigation would focus on issues that have occurred since March 2025 – the date of our service’s previous final decision. And he said the starting point here was that the money judgment of 2014 hadn’t been fully satisfied. He thought Topaz was acting fairly in asking Mr I and Mrs W to pay this debt, because he was satisfied a money judgement was issued against them which hasn’t been fully paid. Our investigator didn’t think it was unreasonable for Topaz to send out field agents. He thought the discrepancies in the dates of these visits were largely immaterial. He said it would be a decision for Topaz as to whether it wanted to send field agents again in future. Our investigator noted that Mr I and Mrs W said they were relying on the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and in particular articles 16 and 21, to tell Topaz not to contact them other than in writing, and to stop processing their data for the purposes of home visits. Our investigator said it would be reasonable for Topaz to record their preference for written contact, but he didn’t think it would be unreasonable for Topaz to use other means to contact Mr I and Mrs W if written communication didn’t result in meaningful engagement regarding the outstanding debt. And he thought Topaz’s processing of their data for home visits falls under the “legitimate grounds” aspect of Article 21, as it relates to pursuing an outstanding debt. Our investigator said our service had previously reached a decision on hard credit searches carried out by Topaz, but the search Mr I and Mrs W had complained about here wasn’t the same, this was a soft credit search. The credit reference agency confirmed that a soft search does not impact Mr I and Mrs W’s credit score. So our investigator thought any reduction in their credit scores around the same time was likely to be due to factors other than the soft credit search. And he didn’t think it was unreasonable for a soft search to be carried out in relation to pursuing the outstanding debt. Our investigator didn’t think Topaz had to do any more. Mr I and Mrs W replied to disagree. They set out the history of this mortgage for us, and said our service was making assumptions about the mortgage, such as the existence of a money judgment, which favoured Topaz. Although they said they were not asking us to reopen the concerns they have previously expressed about what Topaz did in 2014 when their property was sold (many of which our service has previously said it cannot consider) they said all the issues from then which were in dispute were directly relevant to whether what Topaz was doing now, in pursuing this debt, was fair and proportionate. Mr I and Mrs W said before Topaz was allowed to take any steps to pursue the debt, it should be required to clearly explain the basis on which it was acting.

-- 2 of 5 --

Mr I and Mrs W argued that the field agent log discrepancies were not “immaterial”. They said we shouldn’t have speculated that they were unlikely to have engaged with the agents anyway. They said fairness requires Topaz to provide the audit trail for those visits, and specified all the details they thought Topaz ought to be obliged to share with them. Mr I and Mrs W said we hadn’t addressed the misleading messaging, and the phrasing of its letters, which they considered were designed to frighten and pressure payment. They said the letters weren’t clear, fair and not misleading, and we should require Topaz to correct previous communications, and clarify going forward. Mr I and Mrs W said our conclusions on the credit-file searches rested on speculation rather than evidence. They said Topaz had repeatedly accessed their credit files, and they had seen an immediate and material credit score drop on the credit reference agency accessed. They said that demonstrated the need for a closer evidential review of what Topaz did. Mr I and Mrs W wanted this complaint to be considered by an ombudsman, so it was passed 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. I should start by saying that this decision will only deal with matters arising since the previous complaint was finalised in March 2025. I know Mr I and Mrs W have acknowledged this position, but they say it’s still necessary to refer to the previous conduct of this mortgage as they consider it is “essential context for assessing the fairness, proportionality, accuracy and clarity of Topaz’s current conduct”. I understand Mr I and Mrs W remain firmly of the view that the circumstances surrounding the sale of their former home, and the shortfall on the mortgage, are matters which remain in dispute and which are relevant to what is happening now. But I cannot reopen the previous decisions of our service on this mortgage, including on which complaint points our service is not able to consider for Mr I and Mrs W. I can bear in mind that Mr I and Mrs W strongly disagree with the events as Topaz has described them, and I will bear that in mind when I consider this complaint. However, with respect to Mr I and Mrs W, I do think this complaint stands alone, and it’s my view that this complaint can be fairly resolved without also delving into the disputed history of this mortgage. The complaint raised with Topaz was about field agent visits to their home. Our investigator also felt able to provide a response to concerns Mr I and Mrs W raised about wording of a letter sent to them, and a soft credit file search made, and I also think these issues can be responded to here. However, if Mr I and Mrs W wish to raise a wider dispute about the applicability of this debt to them, or Topaz’s right to enforce it now, then they will first need to complain to Topaz about that. Mr I and Mrs W said Topaz should not have sent a field agent to their home. However, Topaz considers that this case involves a longstanding debt. Whilst Mr I and Mrs W continue to state they do not acknowledge or admit this debt, I haven’t seen that they have taken any active steps to dispute that it exists, or that Topaz is entitled to enforce it. Topaz was seeking to re-establish engagement with Mr I and Mrs W about this debt. I don’t think sending field agents was an unreasonable or unfair step for Topaz to have taken in this case.

-- 3 of 5 --

Mr I and Mrs W said Topaz had incorrectly noted three attempted visits by a field agent. However, they said there was only one visit, and not on any of the dates Topaz claimed. They said this wasn’t immaterial, and our service should not have presumed that they would not have engaged with an agent. I note that Mr I and Mrs W did not discuss repayment with the agent who visited. They have since told Topaz they do not consent to visits, and will treat further visits as trespass. So I don’t think it’s unreasonable for our investigator to have concluded that it’s not likely Mr I and Mrs W would have engaged with a field agent on any alternative date. Both sides agree that a field agent did attend Mr I and Mrs W’s property, and that this was not a constructive visit. Our service is designed to provide a more accessible, less formal and faster alternative to the courts, and in line with that, ombudsmen may not always engage with the level of forensic detail that complainants would wish. Here, I think it is sufficient for the purposes of a fair and reasonable outcome to this complaint, for Topaz to have been made aware that Mr I and Mrs W dispute the dates of the visit. And in order to avoid prejudicing any future discussion on this point, I make no finding about what date or dates Topaz’s field agent did visit Mr I and Mrs W. Mr I and Mrs W may wish to seek separate legal advice about how this issue may be put to proof in court proceedings, if the dates Mr I and Mrs W dispute should be relied on by Topaz in such. For the same reasons as set out above to do with the role of our service, I don’t think it would be fair and reasonable for me to require Topaz to share the full details of the instructions it issued to its field agents, and the response it received. If Mr I and Mrs W wish to make a subject access request for data Topaz holds, they may of course do so. Mr I and Mrs W asked our service to direct Topaz not to send field agents to their home in future. I haven’t been able to see that the data processing law they point to, requires this. However, our service isn’t the expert on data processing law, and it’s my duty to resolve this case “… by reference to what is, in [my] opinion, fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.” I must be mindful that I cannot predict the future position of this case, so I don’t think it would be fair and reasonable, in the context of this case, to provide a forward-looking ban on Topaz asking field agents to visit Mr I and Mrs W at any point in the future. Similarly, Mr I and Mrs W asked our service to direct Topaz only to communicate with them in writing. Again, I haven’t been able to see that the data processing law they point to, requires this. I do think it’s reasonable to expect Topaz to record their preference for written communications, but I’ve seen nothing to make me think Topaz has not already done so. And again, I cannot predict the future position of this case, so I don’t think it would be fair and reasonable, in the context of this case, to provide a forward-looking ban on Topaz seeking to communicate with Mr I and Mrs W other than in writing, at any point in the future. I understand that Mr I and Mrs W said they felt the reference to a CCJ in Topaz’s letter of 28 June 2025 was confusing. That letter said this – “You’ve been sent communications previously about your shortfall debt and attempts have been made to reach a repayment agreement with you. These attempts were unsuccessful, so legal action was taken. As a result, you now have a county court judgment (CCJ) against you, which means the court ordered you to repay the outstanding amount.” Mr I and Mrs W felt the use of the words “.. you now have…” suggested the existence of a fresh judgment against them. They asked Topaz about this, and it supplied the judgment of 2014. Mr I and Mrs W say Topaz needs to clarify this previous communication, and use different language going forward. I think Topaz has clarified that it was referring to the

-- 4 of 5 --

money judgment it obtained together with an order for possession, in 2014. As for future communications, I would expect Topaz to comply with the regulatory requirements upon it. But beyond this, I cannot predict the future position of this case, so I don’t think it would be fair and reasonable, in the context of this case, to provide more specific and detailed forward-looking restrictions on the content of communications Topaz may send to Mr I and Mrs W at any point in the future. Mr I and Mrs W said Topaz had carried out soft credit file searches on it. They said our service ought to enquire much more closely into this matter, because they said they had seen a reduction in their credit score on the same credit reference agency that Topaz uses to carry out these checks. However, Topaz isn’t responsible for that score, that’s set by the agency itself. And I note that other prospective lenders will not see these soft searches when they check the credit file of either Mr I or Mrs W. I don’t think it’s unfair or unreasonable for Topaz to use soft credit searches to check the financial position of Mr I and Mrs W, given Topaz’s position on the outstanding shortfall debt. If Mr I and Mrs W consider that any score assigned by that credit reference agency has disadvantaged them, they may complain about this to the credit reference agency itself. I know Mr I and Mrs W will be disappointed by my decision here, but I don’t think this complaint should be upheld. My final decision I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr I and Mrs W to accept or reject my decision before 20 May 2026. Esther Absalom-Gough Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --