The Co-operative Bank Plc · DRN-6196461

The complaint Mr P’s complaint is that The Co-operative Bank Plc trading as Platform took payments for a buildings insurance policy from 2005 to 2013, together with interest on the premiums, despite Mr P having his own buildings insurance. Mr P wants Platform to refund the premiums and interest from 2005, together with compensation for distress, inconvenience and the time he’s spent trying to resolve the matter. What happened I don’t need to set out the full background to the complaint. This is because the history of the matter is set out in the correspondence between the parties and our service, so there is no need for me to repeat the details here. In addition, our decisions are published, so it’s important I don’t include any information that might lead to Mr P being identified. So for these reasons, I will instead concentrate on giving a brief summary of the complaint, followed by the reasons for my decision. I will also explain that an Ombudsman has already decided that we can consider this complaint in relation to premiums charged to the mortgage account between 2009 and 2013. The circumstances are as follows. In 2005, after taking advice from his own independent financial adviser, Mr P took out a buy-to-let (BTL) mortgage with Platform. The mortgage documentation specifies the circumstances in which Platform will put its own buildings insurance in place. Platform put buildings insurance in place, as per the mortgage offer, and debited the premiums to the mortgage account. This ceased in August 2013, due to a change in policy. In 2006 Mr P moved from his then residential address, which I will call 808. He did not update Platform with his new address at that time. The mortgage statements continued to be sent to Mr P at 808. In 2012 Mr P asked Platform to change his address. Mr P was told by Platform he’d need to confirm his new address in writing. Mr P was unhappy about this and refused to do so. The contact notes show that Mr P told Platform that he thought it should be sufficient for him to do this over the phone, but Platform explained that it needed confirmation of the new address in writing. Platform offered to raise a complaint about this but Mr P declined. No written change of address was received and so the address was not changed in Platform’s records and remained 808. Platform’s records show that there was no contact with Mr P from December 2015 until March 2023. In 2023 the current residents of 808 returned the 2023 mortgage statement to Platform saying Mr P had “gone away”. Platform wrote to Mr P through his bank, explaining the address they had on file for him was 808, but correspondence sent there had been returned. Platform asked Mr P to complete and return (in a pre-paid envelope) details of his current address. Mr P updated his address in March 2023, and, on receiving a mortgage statement, noticed his account balance had increased. He contacted Platform and was told that insurance

-- 1 of 3 --

premiums had been charged since 2005. Mr P complained. Platform said that it would refund premiums between 2009 and 2013 if Mr P was able to provide evidence that he had his own insurance for that period. Dissatisfied with Platform’s response, Mr P brought his complaint to our service. Initially the Investigator didn’t think we could consider it, but as explained above, an Ombudsman decided we could consider the complaint about the premiums added to the account between 2009 and 2013. Another Investigator thought Platform’s offer to refund the premiums between 2009 and 2013 if Mr P was able to show he had his own insurance was fair in all the circumstances. Mr P disagreed and asked for an Ombudsman to review the complaint. Mr P believes it is “unfathomable” that Platform was allowed to charge the premiums to his account without consent. Mr P said he was never sent any details of the insurance policy, and the lender didn’t contact him. Mr P said that this is “a very dangerous situation” and should be outlawed. 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. First, I am required to review our jurisdiction to consider a complaint at every stage of our process. I’ve reviewed the decision my Ombudsman colleague issued on 29 October 2025 and confirm I agree with her that we can consider the premiums applied to the mortgage between 2009 and 2013. I’ve noted Mr P’s points that he believes it was “unlawful” for Platform to charge him for insurance premiums. I don’t have the power to decide whether or not Platform has broken any laws – that’s a matter for the courts. However, the mortgage offer and terms and conditions are clear about the circumstances in which Platform can put its own buildings insurance in place, and so Platform is allowed to do this under the contract. Mr P didn’t provide Platform with evidence he had his own buildings insurance, and so Platform was within its rights to put its own insurance in place. Because Platform was the policyholder, there was no obligation for the insurer to send a copy of the policy documents to Mr P. A BTL mortgage is considered to be a commercial mortgage taken out for investment purposes. It’s therefore Mr P’s responsibility to manage his investment, and to inform Platform of his residential address from time to time whenever he moves home. I’m satisfied Mr P was made aware of the need to do this in writing in 2012, but declined to do so. I think Platform’s policy of requiring written confirmation of change of address is reasonable and prudent, as it provides protection for borrowers. It’s surprising that Mr P didn’t query that he’d not received any statements for this mortgage since he took it out. As stated above, as a commercial borrower, Mr P was responsible for managing his investment, and if he’d complied with Platform’s requirements in 2012, he’d have been able to raise the issue of the insurance premiums at the time. Platform has offered to refund insurance premiums totalling £1,292.86 for the period 2009 to 2013 if Mr P is able to provide confirmation of the insurance he had in place during that period. Unfortunately Mr P hasn’t been able to provide any details of the insurance policies he said he’d taken out between 2009 and 2013.

-- 2 of 3 --

Overall, I’m satisfied that Platform’s offer is fair and reasonable, and is, in fact, more than Platform is required to do. I say this for the following reasons. Where there are two insurance policies in place covering the same property, in the event of a claim, the risk would be shared between both insurers 50-50. Likewise, where there is a refund of premiums where dual insurance is in place, only 50% of the premiums are required to be refunded, due to there being another insurer covering the same policy risks. Given this, Platform’s offer to refund 100% of the premiums from 2009 to 2013 is, in my opinion, fair and reasonable in all the circumstances, provided Mr P is able to produce evidence of his own insurance at the time. I appreciate Mr P says he no longer has this, but as a BTL landlord, it would have been prudent for him to keep records of his insurers. It’s not the fault of Platform if Mr P didn’t do so. In the circumstances, I’m not persuaded Platform is required to do anything more. 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 P to accept or reject my decision before 6 April 2026. Jan O'Leary Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --