The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc · DRN-6233852

The complaint Ms M has complained about the mortgage she held with The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc trading as The One Account (“RBS”). What happened The mortgage was taken out in September 2004, with the interest rate being a variable rate. The variable interest rate at the time of the mortgage offer in July 2004 was 5.95%, with a discount given for the first 3 months of 1.75% (which at the time of the mortgage offer reduced the interest rate for the first three months to 4.20%). The total borrowing facility was set at £114,000 and the mortgage term was 21 years. The application was made by a mortgage broker who was acting on behalf of Ms M and her late husband. Ms M’s husband sadly died in September 2009, and Ms M repaid the mortgage in July 2023 when she sold the property. Ms M complained to RBS on 5 May 2025. The complaint response letter from RBS broke Ms M’s complaint down into five issues, with those being, I quote: • “You wrote to us advising us that you are unhappy firstly as you believe that your One Account Mortgage was not suitable for you due to its inappropriate product design.” • “You also feel that you were systematically overcharged interest on the product.” • “In addition, you were not happy with how your account was managed and the contact which was being made to you during the periods when your account was in excess.” • “Furthermore, we did not address your vulnerability post the death of your husband in 2009.” • “Lastly, you also feel that we did not make any effort to restructure the borrowing agreement despite improved equity and performance.” RBS didn’t uphold any part of the complaint and so Ms M referred her complaint to our service. Our Investigator looked at things and didn’t think RBS had done anything wrong, and as Ms M didn’t agree the case was passed to me to decide. What I’ve decided – and why I issued a provisional decision earlier this month, the findings of which said: “I thank Ms M for the level of detail she provided in her submissions. Although I’ve read and considered the whole file, I’ll keep my comments to what I think is relevant. If I don’t

-- 1 of 10 --

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 purposely haven’t mentioned Ms M’s detailed personal circumstances in this decision to protect her privacy, but I can confirm that I have read and understood everything that has been said about that and have taken it all into account in reaching my decision. Again, I would like to thank Ms M for how open she has been with us. It is clear things haven’t been easy for her, and I hope she will accept my best wishes. Ms M has said that RBS had a duty to carry out ongoing fair-value assessments, which is part of the Consumer Duty requirements. The One Account is no longer available to new customers. That means Ms M’s mortgage was what’s known as a closed product and therefore Consumer Duty (including the need for fair-value assessments) only applies to RBS’s acts and omissions since 31 July 2024. That’s because, although Consumer Duty came into force on 31 July 2023, implementation was delayed by a year for closed products. As Ms M repaid her mortgage in July 2023 the Consumer Duty, and therefore the need for fair-value assessments, doesn’t apply. We’re not the regulator, and I’ve no power under our terms of reference to comment on, or otherwise determine, how financial businesses operate in general terms. For that reason, I won’t be commenting on matters Ms M has mentioned such as the design of the One Account in general terms. I have to consider this complaint by reference to Ms M’s particular situation. There are time limits for referring a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Our Investigator explained why he didn’t, as a starting point, think we could look at a complaint about things that happened more than six years before the complaint was made. But he also explained why it was reasonable to interpret the complaint as being about an unfair relationship as described in Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“s.140”), and why this complaint about an allegedly unfair lending relationship had been referred to us in time. For the avoidance of doubt, I agree with our Investigator that I have the power to look at the complaint on this basis. In deciding what’s fair and reasonable I am required to take relevant law into account. Because Ms M’s complaint can be reasonably interpreted as being about the fairness of her relationship with RBS, relevant law in this case includes s.140A, s.140B and s.140C of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I therefore need to consider whether anything RBS did – or didn’t do - created unfairness in the relationship between her and RBS such that it ought to have acted to put right the unfairness – and if so whether it did enough to remove that unfairness, having regard to the whole history of their relationship. The mortgage application As our Investigator explained, the mortgage application was made by a mortgage broker who was acting on behalf of Ms M and her late husband, so it was the broker’s responsibility to ensure the product was suitable for them and that they understood it. Whilst I acknowledge Ms M doesn’t recall a broker was involved, the application form shows otherwise. It isn’t unexpected that memories fade bearing in mind how long it has been since Ms M took out this mortgage, but I can assure her a mortgage broker was involved in the original mortgage application. I won’t provide the details of the broker in this decision as they’re not the subject of this complaint, but Ms M can obtain that information from our Investigator if she wishes to.

-- 2 of 10 --

In relation to RBS’s responsibility, it set out the terms of the contract in the mortgage offer and associated mortgage conditions document, and it provided booklets to explain how the product worked. If any further information or explanations were needed, then that was something Ms M and her late husband needed to explore with their mortgage broker at the time. 2009 and 2010 RBS explained, in its final response letter, why it wasn’t able to amend the account to being in Ms M’s sole name until November 2010. I can also see in the contact notes that this was explained to Ms M over the phone at the time, with RBS saying that until it received the full death certificate the account couldn’t be amended. However, it made manual amendments where it could to some letters in the meantime and apologised for any distress that caused. It seems from the contact history that Ms M told RBS on 28 October 2010 that she was able to provide a copy of the full death certificate, with it being received by RBS at the start of November 2010 and the account was immediately amended to being in her sole name. Ms M has said that RBS should have undertaken a fresh suitability check at that time as her circumstances were different to when the mortgage had been taken out. A call note dated 4 November 2010 says that Ms M was told the account would be transferred into her sole name, and she was asked if she wanted to keep the same facility and whether she could maintain the account and the repayments, with the note indicating Ms M said she can maintain the account and was happy with the monthly payments. Based on that I don’t think RBS acted unreasonably in not insisting it assess Ms M’s circumstances at that time. I acknowledge how distressing it must have been to Ms M that the amendment wasn’t able to be made until November 2010, and I also understand she feels RBS should have done more to support her in the years following the death of her late husband. But having considered everything I think RBS kept her informed at the time and offered support when it was asked for it. However, even if I were to find that RBS should have done more and that I found those matters created an unfair relationship between the parties, I think it’s reasonable to have expected Ms M to have brought any unfairness that arose in 2009 and 2010, to RBS’s attention within a reasonable time, to give it the chance to put things right. I’ve seen no evidence that she did that, and I’ve not seen that there was anything that would have prevented her from doing so. Ms M has told us about how difficult that time was for her, and I’ve a great deal of sympathy with that, but I can see Ms M was in regular contact with RBS at the time and in the years after so I’m satisfied she could have raised her concerns in any of those calls if she felt she’d been treated unfairly. In those circumstances, I don’t think it would be fair to require RBS to pay any compensation for anything Ms M is now complaining about relating to how she was treated following the sad loss of her husband in 2009. The interest rate In May 2011 Ms M said she’d received a lump sum settlement and she asked, if she paid that to the mortgage account, whether the interest rate would reduce. She was told her interest rate was the lowest available on the One Account. It isn’t unusual for mortgage products to have bandings, and Ms M was already in the lowest interest rate band that was available for this account and had been since September 2007.

-- 3 of 10 --

The July 2004 mortgage offer pack sets out the terms of the One account and how the interest rate was intended to operate. It says: “At any time we can alter the Interest Rate used to calculate the interest you pay. We will of course give you notice of any change at the earliest opportunity. The Interest Rate will also vary in relation to your Facility as a proportion of the value of your Property. The current interest rate is 5.95%.” This shows that the mortgage was on the One Account variable rate. This is a managed variable rate which depends in part on the loan to value of the overall facility limit. Whilst the variable rate was 1.45 percentage points above the Bank of England base rate (“base rate”) at the time of the mortgage offer, the terms don’t say the variable rate should or would act as a base rate tracker. I’ve considered whether the terms of Ms M’s agreement go further than reasonably necessary to protect RBS’s legitimate interests and whether the variation clause is sufficiently transparent. Under our rules, we are required to consider what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. That includes – but is not limited to – relevant law. So, while I have taken account of the relevant law regarding unfair contractual terms, I’ve also thought more broadly about whether the way the terms have been used has resulted in Ms M being treated unfairly. I think that is the ultimate question I need to answer when weighing up if this complaint point should be upheld. When Ms M’s mortgage offer was issued, the normal variable rate was 5.95% (with a discount of 1.45 percentage points for the first three months). By the time the mortgage completed in September 2004 the variable rate had increased to 6.20% (so the three- month discounted rate was 4.45%). The rate then varied both up and down until April 2009 when there was a period of stability. In the meantime Ms M had been moved to the lower LTV rate banding in September 2007. In April 2009 the rate was 3.60%. In May 2012 the rate was varied up by 0.25 percentage points, and then it remained stable again until November 2018 when it went up to 4.10%. The next change was in August 2022, at which time the rate started to increase regularly with it reaching 7.35% by the time Ms M redeemed her mortgage in July 2023. As I say, there’s nothing that links the variable rate to base rate or says that the variable rate must be changed when base rate changes. Nor is there anything in the terms and conditions that obliges RBS to change the variable rate at any time – the terms allow RBS to make changes, but don’t require it to do so. Between July 2004 (when the mortgage offer was issued) and April 2009, while the variable rate reduced, it didn’t reduce by the same proportion as the reduction in the base rate. Therefore, the difference between base rate and the variable rate increased from 1.45 percentage points to 3.1 percentage points. Despite this increase in ‘margin’, the variable rate Ms M was paying in 2009 was still lower than what it was when she agreed to the mortgage in 2004 and it was in line, if not lower, than the market average standard variable rate for the time. I’ve already set out that this wasn’t a tracker mortgage, so RBS was not contractually obligated to track base rate. Nor is it the case that Ms M’s mortgage had a ‘cap’ preventing RBS’s variable rate from increasing beyond a certain ‘margin’ above base rate. So, there was nothing in the contract that expressly prohibited RBS from setting the variable rate at a

-- 4 of 10 --

level whereby the margin between the variable rate and base rate would change. But that doesn’t mean that RBS could set the variable rate at whatever level it chose. To evidence its decisions at the time and reliance on the contract terms, RBS has told us that despite a reduction in base rate, its total group funding costs increased considerably over the years 2008-2009. As such, it has said it was not able to pass on the full reductions in base rate to its variable rate customers. And in 2012 the variable rate increased despite there being no change to the base rate, which reflected an increase in RBS’s costs for this type of product. The mortgage market went through a period of significant change as a result of the global financial crisis. This impacted the funding costs of businesses, including RBS, and was reflected in changes to a number of lenders’ interest rates charged across the market at the time. This was clear at the time and has been the subject of analysis by both the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority since. Whilst base rate did reduce significantly during this period, the cost to lenders of funding their businesses changed, as did their prudential requirements. These were made up of several factors that are not directly linked to base rate. With this in mind, and in conjunction with the information RBS has been able to provide, I am satisfied it had legitimate reasons to vary its variable rate in the way that it did. Whilst the evidence provided is limited due to the passage of time, I have not seen any evidence to suggest the interest rate changes RBS made were arbitrary, excessive, or unfair. Rather, the evidence I’ve seen satisfies me that RBS acted in line with its terms and conditions to protect its legitimate interests while balancing its obligation to treat Ms M fairly. And I’m further satisfied that, albeit limited, the information RBS has been able to provide for this period is corroborated by evidence of wider market conditions at the time. Overall, I’m satisfied that RBS has shown that it was entitled to rely on the terms and conditions to make the changes to the variable rate it did make, and that there was no obligation on it to make changes to the variable rate at other times. Taking that into account, I don’t think there’s evidence either that RBS relied on changes it was not entitled to make in setting the variable rate charged at the start of the period I can consider, or that it acted unfairly in making further changes to the variable rate during that period. That being the case, I don’t think there is any basis to say Ms M was charged an unfairly high rate of interest on her mortgage, and I’ve seen no evidence to say that the interest she was charged was unfair for any other reason. There was no obligation on RBS to offer a new preferential rate at any time, and nothing in Ms M’s mortgage offer says that RBS would move her onto a new rate either. If any existing customer – including Ms M – had wanted a new preferential interest rate they needed to contact RBS to request that, and if their product was the One Account (like Ms M) then they would need to complete an internal remortgage to RBS’s core range of products. I’ve considered all the available evidence, and all of the changes RBS made to the One Account variable rate. Having done so, I’m not persuaded that anything RBS has done in varying the rate has led to Ms M being treated unfairly. In January 2021 Ms M’s interest rate was 4.10%. It remained at that level until August 2022 despite changes in the market which meant wider interest rates had started to climb from December 2021. After that Ms M’s interest rate increased, as did the market generally, with Ms M paying her mortgage off before rates peaked in the second half of 2023/2024. If

-- 5 of 10 --

plotted on a graph, the general curve of Ms M’s interest rate since January 2021 wouldn’t look too dissimilar from interest rates generally in that same period. I’ve also compared Ms M’s interest rate to the standard variable rate RBS charged on its core range, and the variable rate it charged on its flexible offset mortgage, and again the rate charged on Ms M’s One Account moved broadly in line with the rates charged on those. I’ve also kept in mind that the One Account interest rate wasn’t materially different to the reversion rates of many mortgage lenders. The highest interest rate Ms M was charged was 7.35%, but the reversion rates of some other mainstream lenders reached a higher level than that at the time in question. I also bear in mind that the One Account came with additional benefits and features Ms M could use that the core range of mortgages didn’t have. And there’s a cost to RBS in having separate systems to manage a distinct account with those features. There were no contractual barriers to Ms M exiting this mortgage, either by repaying (as she now has done), applying for an internal remortgage to a standard RBS mortgage or moving to another lender. If Ms M was unable to source a new mortgage elsewhere due to her personal circumstances at the time, then she could have discussed that with RBS to see whether it had a suitable product it could offer her. For all the reasons given, I’m not persuaded Ms M was treated unfairly in respect of the interest rate she was charged. Forbearance, the facility limit and customer service Ms M has said that RBS didn’t proactively restructure the borrowing. I would not expect a lender to make a proactive suggestion like that as to suggest such a substantial change as that, without a customer raising it first or there being a reason for it to be raised, could be misconstrued as advice that it would be a good way to proceed. But, with any changes in product and/or borrowing terms, there can be unintended consequences so it would have been inappropriate for RBS to put it forward as a suggestion. If Ms M was unhappy with the One Account, I can’t see anything that prevented her from asking about any alternative options and then a conversation could have taken place. Ms M’s mortgage was the One Account and RBS didn’t offer new rates for that, so any new product would require an internal remortgage onto one of RBS’s core range of products and those were very different (not offering the flexibility of the One Account). If RBS had proactively approached Ms M with a suggestion she make such a change it could have been construed by Ms M that RBS was advising her that was the right thing to do. The same applies for a term extension. When the term is extended that means interest is payable for that longer period so the mortgage will be more expensive overall, so I wouldn’t expect a lender to proactively offer that to a consumer without a reason, such as a consumer saying they can’t afford their monthly payments on a long-term basis. When Ms M’s loan to value dropped so she was in the lower interest rate band for the One Account then RBS proactively moved her onto that lower rate with that happening in September 2007, and that is as far as I think it needed to go, in line with the account terms. The contact notes indicate Ms M told RBS in November 2010 that she wanted to keep the same facility and she could maintain the account and was happy with the monthly payments. If that changed at any time and Ms M no longer wanted the features offered by the One Account then she needed to tell RBS that and it could then discuss any alternative options, but I simply wouldn’t expect RBS to make an unsolicited approach to Ms M in that

-- 6 of 10 --

regard. I can’t see from the contact notes that Ms M told RBS she no longer wanted the features the One Account offered and instead wanted a standard mortgage. Ms M has said that RBS didn’t reduce the facility limit but that’s not correct. I can see from the contact notes that the facility limit was reduced each year. And this can also be seen by the statements Ms M provided to this service, with some examples being: • January 2009 the facility limit had reduced to £77,750 (from the £114,000 it was at the start of the mortgage). • January 2015 the facility limit had reduced to £56,750 • July 2023 the facility limit had reduced to £35,250 I can see that over the years Ms M spoke to RBS to say she was going to struggle to meet her payments for a month or so, such as in October 2013 when the contact notes indicate Ms M said that was due to Christmas and winter fuel bills, and each time RBS discussed the options with her and put in place reduced payment arrangements. It seems RBS explored whether this was a longer-term issue, with Ms M indicating it was just a temporary problem and she would have no issues going forward. It may be the contact notes don’t truly reflect the conversations that were had, but as we are now so many years on from the conversations there are, understandably, no call recordings available so I need to rely on the contemporaneous call notes, especially as Ms M’s handwritten notes that she has very kindly provided don’t contradict those records. The notes indicate that Ms M contacted RBS in January 2011 to request a payment holiday for two months as she said she was waiting for her late husband’s life assurance to come through. That was agreed, as was a three-month extension to that so it ran to be five months in total. I understand from the contact notes that the payment came through in May 2011, with Ms M saying at that time she had a lump sum to pay towards the mortgage account. That seems to be a reasonable forbearance measure and gave time for Ms M to get the mortgage back on track. Then contact notes in April and May 2018 said Ms M said she was beginning to struggle due to unsecured debts she had. She said 2016 was a bad year for her in trading (she was self-employed) and she was still recovering from that. The income and expenditure assessment that was completed showed her expenditure was over £1,000 more than her income and she was already with Payplan. It said there was a one-off expenditure noted as being due to a water leak at a separate rental flat Ms M owned that wasn’t covered by insurance and she needed to pay the plumber and for ceiling repairs. A payment deferral was put in place until (and including) July 2018, and then in August 2018 Ms M was in a position to clear the deferred payments. A part payment was made in November 2018, with Ms M saying that was due to her not receiving a payment due for her self-employed work, and she said, in December 2018, she was now in a position to make up the shortfall and there shouldn’t be any problems going forward. Unfortunately Ms M’s position worsened, as she said she had a bad start to 2019, with the account brought back up to date in April 2019 but then going straight back into difficulties. Throughout that time RBS said an income and expenditure assessment was needed for any formal arrangement to be put in place but Ms M didn’t provide her up to date figures for that. Whilst Ms M has provided copies of some income and expenditure assessments to our Investigator, those were for Business Debtline (in September 2019) and Ecotricity (in October 2020) and there is no evidence to support anything being provided to RBS

-- 7 of 10 --

between April 2019 and October 2019. The first note indicating the income and expenditure information had been provided was in November 2019, and upon reviewing that RBS offered a term extension to Ms M to reduce the monthly payments. Ms M agreed to that, and the facility was formally varied, with the term extended to now end in 2040 (from the original term end year of 2025). I understand that reduced the required payments from around £615 a month to around £225 a month (plus a payment of around £100 a month towards the arrears balance). Again, Ms M’s own handwritten notes support that she didn’t provide her income and expenditure information before November 2019. Unfortunately, in January 2020 the arrangement to repay the arrears was broken, with Ms M saying her work had been slow so she had a reduced income. As the income and expenditure assessment completed at that time showed no affordability Ms M was told to pay what she could afford but that due to the level of arrears further action may be taken. A formal demand letter was sent to Ms M in February 2020. In March 2020 Ms M completed an updated income and expenditure assessment and, following that, a new arrangement was put in place for her to repay the arrears over 13 months which required an additional payment of around £70 a month. The arrangement was completed in April 2021, with the account being brought up to date. That remained the case until the mortgage was repaid in July 2023. Having reviewed everything very carefully I think RBS acted fairly when Ms M was unable to make her full payments and its responses each time were reasonable based on what Ms M told it about how long she was likely to struggle for and what it knew about the conduct of her account. When it became apparent this was a longer-term issue RBS rescheduled the facility in November 2019 to extend the term so the payments were reduced to a level Ms M could sustain. I understand Ms M is unhappy with some of the letters sent to her, such as the one in July 2018 that said she was behind on her mortgage payments without agreeing that with RBS first. I agree that wording is incorrect as Ms M had agreed with RBS to defer her May and June 2018 payments, but in the context of the full letter I think it is clear RBS wasn’t expecting payments in those months as the ‘Amount due’ listed for each month is £0.00. However, even if I were to find the letter caused distress to Ms M, for the same reasons as I explained earlier I’m satisfied that it would not be fair and reasonable to expect RBS to remedy any claimed unfairness from this issue that happened in 2018 as I think it’s reasonable to have expected Ms M to have brought that to RBS’s attention to give it the chance to put things right at the time. I’ve seen no evidence she did that, and I’ve not seen that there was anything that would have prevented her doing so. In those circumstances, I don’t think it would be fair to require RBS to pay any compensation for anything Ms M is now complaining about relating to the letters she received in 2018. I understand Ms M feels RBS was heavy-handed in the letters it sent to her when she was in, what she has described as, ‘minor shortfalls’ and repayment plans. There are some letters RBS had to send and statements it needed to include in those letters for regulatory reasons. Whilst Ms M may feel that was heavy handed, arrears are arrears (however minor Ms M may feel they were) so RBS had a regulatory responsibility to notify Ms M, in writing, about the possible consequences of that. That is the same position when a repayment plan is in place to repay the arrears, RBS still has to send regular arrears notices to keep Ms M informed about the position of her account whilst those arrears remain outstanding. Finally, RBS has offered £100 compensation to Ms M as it sent its complaint response letter to the wrong address. I make no comment on that offer as it didn’t form part of this

-- 8 of 10 --

complaint, and I simply leave it to Ms M to contact RBS directly if she wants to accept that offer.” RBS accepted my provisional decision and said Ms M had been in touch with it directly about the £100 offer. Ms M told us that she did not accept the provisional decision. When doing so, she provided extensive comment, which essentially just reiterated what had been said before the provisional decision, or were things which I fully considered when reaching that decision. So I hope Ms M understands why I will not be responding at the same length as it would mean me simply repeating the findings I’d reached in my provisional decision, which I’ve set out above. Ms M has said that over time the margin between the One Account and base rate widened despite the outstanding balance decreasing, and therefore the lender’s security position strengthening. I set out in my provisional decision why the margin varied and I have nothing further to add on this point. I can reassure Ms M that these are well-rehearsed arguments that our service has considered many times before and I’m satisfied, having considered everything, that RBS didn’t act unfairly when the margin widened. I’m not able to disclose the information we’ve seen on this point to Ms M as it is commercially sensitive, but I seek to reassure her it has been thoroughly reviewed and I’m satisfied with what it shows. Ms M has made reference to the evidence of the rate setting being limited, but that isn’t the fault of RBS. We’re talking about decisions made over 15 years ago, and the fact information may no longer be available is one reason why there are time limits to bring a complaint. Had Ms M complained at the time in question (that is, when the gap widened between 2007 and April 2009, or in the years immediately after) then I’ve no doubt RBS would have had all the information available to show why the rate was varied in the way it was. In respect of Ms M’s point about RBS’s security position strengthening, RBS now only has two bands for this product, over 85%, and 85% and under loan to value. Once Ms M was in the 85% and under loan to value band then there was nowhere further for her to go. Had Ms M remained in the higher banding then her rate would have been higher than it was, instead she was correctly charged the prevailing rate charged to all customers in the lower banding. It may be RBS previously offered more bandings, but after Ms M reached the 85% and under loan to value banding that was no longer the case. RBS doesn’t offer bespoke rates on this product so it didn’t matter whether Ms M’s loan to value was 10% or 84% towards the end of the loan term, she would be charged the same rate. It is up to a lender what bandings – if any – it offers. Ms M has mentioned that the mortgage statements issued in 2023 still referenced the original 2004 valuation figure. But it would as that was the last valuation that was carried out on the property. If Ms M wanted the valuation figure updated then she would have needed to ask RBS if a new valuation could be done, and she would have needed to have paid for that. But in any event, it made no difference as Ms M was already in the lowest loan to value banding that RBS offered for this account, so irrespective of whether her valuation was noted at £122,000 or £250,000 then her rate wouldn’t have changed. Ms M has said that where a mortgage is arranged through a broker acting in an advised capacity it would normally be expected that records of that advice would exist. That may be the case, but this complaint isn’t about the broker it is about the lender. The lender wouldn’t get copies of any of that as they’re between Ms M and her broker. If Ms M wants sight of any of that information she will need to contact the broker directly to see if they still hold any of it. Finally, Ms M has said the lender confirmed that it has not provided the full contact history to our service and has instead supplied only selected notes. I don’t know what conversations have taken place between Ms M and RBS, but that’s not correct. Our Investigator has already explained to Ms M that we hold the full contact history (not just selected notes).

-- 9 of 10 --

Those run to 93 pages and cover the period 17 May 2004 (when Ms M’s broker submitted the application) until 31 July 2023 (just after the mortgage account was closed). I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so, and having considered the full file afresh, I see no reason to depart from my provisional findings. My final decision I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms M to accept or reject my decision before 15 April 2026. Julia Meadows Ombudsman

-- 10 of 10 --