Landmark Mortgages Limited · DRN-6163761

The complaint The estate of Mrs D has complained about the service provided by Landmark Mortgages Limited following the death of Mrs D. The estate is being administered by Miss D and Mr D, although most of the contact with both Landmark and the Financial Ombudsman Service has been with Miss D. Any reference to Miss D and/or Mr D in this decision should be taken to mean them acting in that capacity where appropriate. In addition I will only refer to Landmark in this decision, but that should be taken to mean the previous lender(s) where applicable. What happened Mrs D took out this equity release mortgage in 2002, and she sadly died in September 2017. Landmark received the death certificate on 2 October 2017, and it requested a copy of the grant of probate. Landmark sent letters to the property address from November 2017 to chase things up, and then in October 2018 it instructed a field agent to visit the property. The field agent visited the property and found Miss D was living there. Miss D raised a complaint through the field agent saying she’d been treated poorly by Landmark as it had refused to deal with her and now continued to harass her. The field agent’s notes indicate she said she wouldn’t cooperate with Landmark until it apologises by letter. Landmark responded to the complaint in December 2018. It said it had sent numerous letters since Mrs D had died asking that a grant of probate be provided to show who had authority to deal with the account. It said until that is received Miss D was unable to administer the account. Overall, it said it hadn’t done anything wrong. In January 2019 a further letter was sent to the property address to say that if contact wasn’t made within two weeks, then Landmark would consider litigation action. After two weeks a letter before action was sent. In June 2019 Miss D phoned Landmark and said she was in the process of applying for probate, and said she would keep Landmark updated. Mr D then phoned Landmark in October 2019. He asked for confirmation of the mortgage balance at the date Mrs D had died, and he said that was the final piece of information that was needed to enable probate to be finalised. Mr D said he anticipated it would be another four weeks and said all post can go to the property address as Miss D was living there. That information was provided by post on 10 October 2019. A further letter before action was issued in January 2020. As legal action was being started the country went into lockdown due to Covid-19 and so matters were put on hold. In March 2024 Landmark instructed a field agent to visit the property, with the report coming back that the property had been confirmed as empty. And then in July 2024 Landmark followed its abandoned property process which led to a notice being placed on the property to say it would be taken into possession.

-- 1 of 5 --

Miss D and a firm of solicitors acting on behalf of the estate contacted Landmark to try to stop the repossession, but Landmark decided to proceed. The property was taken into possession on 26 July 2024. Landmark issued a redemption statement on 27 August 2024, and Landmark received most of the funds on 11 September 2024. But as it still didn’t have a copy of the grant of probate to show who had authority to deal with the estate, and because that also wasn’t the full amount outstanding at that time, Landmark didn’t hand the property back. The grant of probate was obtained on 25 October 2024. Unhappy with what had happened, the estate of Mrs D raised a complaint with Landmark. To try to resolve things Landmark said it would write-off the remaining balance and it handed the property back, however it said that it hadn’t got things wrong overall, so it defended the complaint. Our Investigator said that that whilst she empathised with the situation, it wasn’t unreasonable for Landmark to have taken the action it did as so many years had passed since Mrs D had died. She said whilst the delay in the redemption statement being received was regrettable, Landmark asserted it needed the necessary documents to proceed, and it had written off the outstanding balance from the delayed redemption. She also said that whilst there may have been damage caused to the property when possession was taken, it aligned with what is typically expected in those circumstances and there was no other damage beyond normal wear and tear. The estate of Mrs D didn’t agree and so the case was passed to me to decide. 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. Although I’ve read and considered the whole file I’ll keep my comments to what I think is relevant. If I don’t comment on any specific point it’s not because I’ve not considered it but because I don’t think I need to comment on it in order to reach the right outcome. I hope Miss D and Mr D will accept my condolences for their loss. I’ve a great deal of sympathy for the position they were in, with the passing of Mrs D and then their difficulties in dealing with the estate. Things can’t have been easy for them. What I have to consider is whether Landmark acted fairly and reasonably in the circumstances. And if not, consider whether the estate has suffered a loss as a result. Under our rules, we can consider a complaint from a consumer. Mrs D was the consumer and when she died the right to complain passed to her estate. But I must explain that, although Miss D and Mr D are representing the estate, they’re not Landmark’s customers here. Miss D and Mr D’s role is to bring the complaint on behalf of the estate, in the same way that a person might instruct a solicitor or other professional to represent them in a complaint. I don’t have the power to look at a complaint from Miss D and/or Mr D in their personal capacity or look at how this matter has affected them personally. This also means I can’t make an award for any distress caused to Miss D or Mr D. Miss D said that she wanted to provide further information in response to the assessment our Investigator issued on 7 January 2026. Various deadlines have since passed, and despite me asking for clarification on a few points on 2 March 2026, there has been no

-- 2 of 5 --

further response and the information has still not been provided. We can’t keep cases in abeyance indefinitely and so I’m now deciding the case based on what we already hold. When I do that I don’t think this complaint should be upheld beyond what Landmark has already done. I realise this will be disappointing for the estate of Mrs D, but I hope the reasons I have set out below will help Miss D and Mr D to understand why I have come to this conclusion. Whilst it’s unwelcome, the death of a sole borrower means the mortgage debt is immediately due. Landmark had been told of Mrs D’s passing in September 2017 and, despite chases from Landmark, it still hadn’t received the grant of probate by the time it decided to treat this as an abandoned property in July 2024. There was also no indication of when the mortgage would be repaid, and seemingly no progress being made. Landmark was entitled to expect the outstanding debt to be repaid when the mortgage fell due for repayment under the terms and conditions underpinning the mortgage contract. Instead, it was nearly seven years on from that and the estate still hadn’t obtained the grant of probate and there was no sign of the mortgage being repaid. That is the context in which I’ve considered what is fair and reasonable. The estate has given various reasons why probate wasn’t obtained before October 2024, but the consequences of that was that Landmark decided not to wait any longer before taking possession of the property. I’ve thought about whether Landmark’s decisions were reasonable. Landmark’s internal criteria were met, and many years had passed since the account fell due. In those circumstances it doesn’t seem unreasonable that, even when the estate of Mrs D and its solicitor made contact in July 2024 after Miss D was notified by a neighbour of the abandonment notice on the property, it wasn’t willing to stand down its repossession action. Landmark had, by then, given far longer than it needed to as it expects accounts to be settled within 18 months, a timeframe that isn’t unusual in the mortgage industry as it is generally seen to give enough time to obtain probate and settle an account, whether that’s through the sale of the property, refinancing or being redeemed through some other means. Whilst Miss D has said she tried to speak to Landmark over the years that’s not supported by the evidence we hold. That shows Miss D notified Landmark of Mrs D’s death in September 2017, it then chased for the grant of probate over the next year before instructing a field agent in October 2018 who Miss D refused to speak to and instead raised a complaint, which was rejected. In 2019, in response to a letter saying that legal action would be taken, both Miss D and Mr D said probate was being obtained, but it still wasn’t progressed until Landmark said it was taking the property into possession in July 2024. However, even if Landmark did refuse to speak to Miss D that wouldn’t be incorrect as until the grant of probate was received no party had been appointed to act as the representative of the estate. That is entirely normal in the mortgage industry and if Miss D wanted to move things forward with Landmark then she and Mr D needed to obtain the grant of probate. I understand Miss D feels the Will was enough for Landmark to engage with her as it listed her as one of the intended executors, but I can see why Landmark didn’t accept that as the grant of probate is what gives an executor the legal authority to administer the estate. As shown here, executors can change from those stated in a Will as one executor named in the Will wasn’t appointed under the grant of probate, so Landmark had no way of knowing if that would also be the case with Miss D and Mr D. In addition, Landmark had no way of knowing there wasn’t a subsequent Will that listed entirely different intended executors and the probate process validates the Will. The executors needed to obtain the grant of probate and I can’t hold Landmark liable for them not doing so for seven years.

-- 3 of 5 --

At the time the abandonment notice was put on the property there had been no contact with Miss D or Mr D since October 2019 when Mr D said he anticipated it would be about four weeks until he had the grant of probate and, by Miss D’s own admission, the property had been empty since 2021 when she moved out. Whilst that abandonment notice prompted contact from the estate of Mrs D and its solicitor, I can see why Landmark still proceeded with its possession action, as there were still no guarantees anything would change from how it had been since 2017. Landmark said to the solicitor acting for the estate of Mrs D that it would stop the possession action but then chose to continue, but that was a decision Landmark was entitled to make. As above, by now it was nearly seven years on and a grant of probate still hadn’t been obtained so there was no guarantee, if Landmark stopped its possession action, that things wouldn’t then just go back to the way they had been with no progress being made. Landmark was entitled to continue with its possession action to protect its interests, and if the estate of Mrs D did then progress things, they would have until the exchange of contracts on any sale in possession to repay the mortgage and get the property back, which is what happened here. Having considered all the circumstances and background, I don’t think it was unreasonable for Landmark to continue to act at that time. Even though the information Landmark gave to the estate’s solicitor was incorrect as possession action continued, this is what we call a misrepresentation. When we’re looking at complaints about misrepresentations we consider the appropriate remedy is to place the consumer in the position they would be in if the incorrect information hadn’t been given. We don’t put them in the position they would be in if the misinformation had been correct. The estate of Mrs D was already in the position it would have been in when possession action continued. The estate of Mrs D could never have been in the position where Landmark stopped possession action at that time as it was entitled to make the decision that it would continue. For that reason, even if I were to make a finding that Landmark had misled the estate of Mrs D there would be no grounds for me to order Landmark to do anything further in respect of this issue. The solicitors acting for the estate of Mrs D paid the amount showing in the redemption statement as the amount due on 30 August 2024 despite not making the payment until September 2024 and the redemption statement saying “Please note this redemption statement is only valid until the end of the proposed month of redemption. If you intend to redeem after this date, please request a new redemption statement. Failure to do this may result in a shortfall of redemption funds and you may incur further costs.” This meant there was a shortfall and so the account couldn’t be closed. Whilst I can see there was a difficulty in obtaining that redemption statement that goes back to the fact a grant of probate hadn’t been obtained, and I can’t see the solicitors acting for the estate of Mrs D tried to contact Landmark or its solicitor to find out the up-to-date redemption amount before making the payment. It seems there was a delay in the solicitors acting for the estate of Mrs D receiving the redemption statement, saying it wasn’t received until September. But I don’t need to make a finding on that as Landmark agreed to write-off all fees, interest and charges incurred after 30 August 2024. That was a fair offer to move things forward so the charge could be removed and the property handed back. Whilst that took some time to happen, that’s because Landmark needed to make the decision to do that write-off. The estate of Mrs D has said damage was caused to the property when it was taken into possession. I’ve reviewed what the parties have said about that, and looked at the photos provided, and having done so I agree with our Investigator that there’s no obvious damage

-- 4 of 5 --

outside of what would normally be expected when a property is taken into possession, such as obtaining entry to the property and changing the locks. It is also normal for a property’s utilities to be turned off when taken into possession. Having considered everything very carefully, whilst I’ve a great deal of sympathy for the situation, I can’t uphold this complaint made by the estate of Mrs D. My final decision I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask the estate of Mrs D to accept or reject my decision before 22 April 2026. Julia Meadows Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --