Cambridge Building Society · DRN-6176438

The complaint Mr H and Mr M complain that Cambridge Building Society withdrew a mortgage offer due to what they say was a clerical error on their part. They ask that it re-instates the mortgage offer and pays compensation for their losses and distress. What happened Mr H and Mr M had a mortgage with Cambridge. They applied for additional borrowing to consolidate debt and pay for work to make adaptions to the property for Mr H’s needs. Cambridge issued a mortgage offer on 2 October 2025. It withdrew the offer on 6 October 2024. It said this was because of incorrect signatures on the mortgage documents. Cambridge said it wouldn’t accept further applications from Mr H and Mr M. It said it would waive the early repayment change if they remortgage with another lender, and would consider giving consent to a second charge loan. Mr H and Mr M say the problem with the signatures was due to a clerical error and they should have been allowed to re-sign the documents. Mr H says he told Cambridge he has a disability and it didn’t make reasonable adjustments. He says they paid for work to the property in reliance on the offer, and are now without funds for further work or to clear expensive unsecured debt. Mr H says he missed out on a promotion and has been signed off work as a result of the stress. Our investigator said Cambridge hadn’t acted unfairly and was entitled to withdraw the mortgage offer. He said it wasn’t fair and reasonable to require Cambridge to reinstate the offer or compensate Mr H and Mr M for costs they chose to incur before the mortgage completed. Our investigator said Cambridge had fairly taken Mr H’s vulnerabilities into account. Mr H said the issue isn’t whether Cambridge had a contractual right to withdraw the mortgage offer, but whether its response was fair and proportionate in the circumstances. He said Cambridge should have taken into account that they’d had a mortgage with it for some time, during which they’d increased their borrowing significantly. Mr H said there had been technical issues during his calls with the investigator which meant he didn’t have a full opportunity to explain the context. He asked to speak to the ombudsman before a final decision is reached. Mr H said while Cambridge had considered his vulnerabilities in how it communicated, it hadn’t taken this into account regarding its decision making and risk assessment. He said Cambridge didn’t have written records of how it reached internal decisions which would show whether it acted fairly. He also said not enough account had been taken of the foreseeability of their reliance on the mortgage offer. Mr H says they spent £30,000 of savings on work to the property, and have been left unable to fund further work to create an accessible bathroom. He says they’ve been unable to consolidate unsecured debt of about £80,000, which has high rates of interest. His

-- 1 of 4 --

application for promotion at work was unsuccessful, as the stress of this situation affected his performance and confidence. Mr H says his doctor prescribed medication for stress and he’s been signed off work. 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. Our role is to resolve disputes quickly and with minimal formality. Mr H asked to speak to me before the final decision. That’s not our usual process. Having reviewed the available evidence, I don’t need to speak to Mr H in order to reach a fair decision. Mr H has made detailed comments in his written communications, in addition to speaking to our investigator. I have sufficient available evidence to reach a fair decision. While Mr H prefers to receive information by phone calls, our rules require me to send a signed written statement of my determination. Mr H said he wanted the opportunity to tell me more about the complaint. Prior to me issuing this decision, Mr H spoke to our investigator to explain why he and Mr M say Cambridge acted unfairly. I listened to a recording of this call. Cambridge’s mortgage adviser called Mr H on 6 October 2025 to tell him the mortgage offer had been withdrawn. It said this was due to a discrepancy with the signatures on the documentation. Mr M’s signature didn’t match the one on file. The mortgage adviser said he wanted to call Mr H before he received the email saying this. He said the decision had been made by the executive in charge of underwriting and couldn’t be changed. Cambridge wrote to Mr H and Mr M on 6 October 2025 saying it was no longer able to offer a further advance as the information in their signed acceptance documentation raised concerns that the application didn’t meet its terms and conditions or compliance checks. Cambridge told Mr H and Mr M – correctly – that rules on mortgage regulation allow lenders to include conditions in mortgage offers. The mortgage offer issued by Cambridge says the offer can be withdrawn in certain circumstances, including if it’s given information that is inaccurate. Cambridge said financial crime regulations also support withdrawal due to signature inconsistencies or potential fraud risks. Cambridge told Mr H and Mr M it had three concerns which fell into these categories. An incorrect signature for Mr M on the mortgage deed. That the address given for the witness was a property owned by the applicants. And that the witness was deceased. Mr H says the issue isn’t whether Cambridge had the contractual right to withdraw the mortgage offer. He says its response – to withdraw the mortgage offer and say it wouldn’t offer further lending in future – was disproportionate and not consistent with its duty to treat them fairly. He says they should be allowed to resign the documents correctly. Mr H says this was a clerical error and they had nothing to gain from the incorrect signatures on the documents. Mr H says he has a disability which is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. He says Cambridge breached the Equality Act 2010 as it didn’t make the requested adjustments. He says Cambridge’s failure to communicate by telephone as a reasonable adjustment for his autism contributed to the confusion and mistaken document submission. Cambridge said Mr H and Mr M had a clear point of contact at each stage of the process (the mortgage adviser, the mortgage manager and then the complaint handler). It says where possible and appropriate, if an email or written correspondence was sent to Mr H it

-- 2 of 4 --

also called or offered to call. It says it recorded its rationale in detail as to how it supported Mr H’s needs when the mortgage offer was withdrawn. I think Cambridge acted fairly, to communicate with Mr H by phone when it was possible to do so. Mr H says it’s not just about how Cambridge communicated with him. He says it should also have taken his vulnerabilities into account when deciding how to respond when it received the documents with the incorrect signatures. He says Cambridge failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. I’ve taken the Equality Act 2010 into account when deciding this complaint – given that it’s relevant law – but I’ve ultimately decided this complaint based on what’s fair and reasonable. If Mr H and Mr M want a decision as to whether Cambridge breached the Equality Act 2010, then they’d need to go to Court. When Cambridge sent the further advance offer to Mr H and Mr M it asked them to sign the customer declaration. It’s reasonable for Cambridge to expect Mr H and Mr M to each sign the declaration, in front of the stated witness. I don’t think it had fairly to waive this, due to Mr H’s disability. Cambridge received a customer declaration, apparently signed by Mr H and Mr M and a witness. Mr H and Mr M don’t dispute that the document was not in fact signed by Mr M or the witness. Mr H says when Cambridge asked about this he panicked and gave an incorrect explanation about what had happened. Cambridge told Mr H and Mr M on 6 October 2025 there was a discrepancy with the signatures on the documentation, as Mr M’s signature didn’t match the one on file. During a call on 7 October 2025 Mr H told Cambridge they’d audited the documents they’d sent to Cambridge and identified how the discrepancy arose. He said they’d reviewed the documents and Mr M had applied an incorrect electronic signature in error. Mr H did not mention on this call any issues regarding the signature of the witness, despite having reviewed the documents. During a call on 23 October 2025, Cambridge told Mr H it was aware that the stated witness was deceased. Mr H said that was far-fetched and the witness was not dead, and he could prove this. The stated witness, who Mr H says was a close family member, had died in mid-2024, nearly 18 months before the mortgage deed was signed in October 2025. Mr H says he later sent an email to Cambridge saying that the witness was deceased. Mr H said he’d mistakenly inserted the family member’s signature from a previous document. Mr H also said he’d created a commemorative deed (with the late family member as witness) and mistakenly provided this. Mr H says this was human error during a period of bereavement. I must be fair to both parties. Cambridge is entitled to make commercial decisions about its lending criteria and processes and its risk appetite. The mortgage is in joint names, which means both parties are jointly and severally liable for the debt. It’s fair and reasonable for Cambridge to check that both parties consent to, and sign the relevant documents for, the mortgage. Cambridge has a charge on the property, so that it can if necessary recover its debt through taking possession and selling the property. It’s fair and reasonable for it to expect the mortgage documents to be correctly signed and witnessed. Cambridge, like all financial businesses, has a duty to protect against fraud. This includes checking that signatures on documents are genuine.

-- 3 of 4 --

Cambridge also raised concerns that Mr H had given inaccurate information about the buy to let properties he and/or Mr M own. Mr H disputes this. I don’t need to make findings about that here. That’s because I think it was reasonable for Cambridge to be concerned when it received a document with incorrect signatures. I think it was reasonable for Cambridge to remain concerned following Mr H’s explanations about how this came about. I don’t think Cambridge acted unfairly when it said it couldn’t offer further lending to Mr H and Mr M (on this occasion or in future). The fact that Mr H has a disability doesn’t change my view about this. Mr H asked that Cambridge communicate as far as possible by phone – which it agreed to do. I don’t think Cambridge had fairly to accept documents that were not correctly signed or offer Mr H and Mr M an opportunity to resign the documents after its compliance checks discovered this or after Mr H’s explanations as to what had happened. I think it was fair for Cambridge to treat Mr H and Mr M as it would treat any customer in the same position. When it became aware of the incorrect signatures, Cambridge contacted Mr H and Mr M promptly to tell them that it could no longer offer further lending. This was only two working days after it issued the mortgage offer. I don’t think it could reasonably have expected Mr H and Mr M to carry out and pay for work on their property in that short time. But even if it had, that doesn’t mean it would be unfair for it to withdraw the mortgage offer based on its reasonable concerns about the signatures on the documents. It follows that I don’t think it’s fair and reasonable to require Cambridge to re-instate the offer, refund the valuation fee, or compensate Mr H and Mr M for any costs they incurred or for any upset or stress this caused. Mr H says following Data Subject Access Requests he discovered Cambridge has no internal decision logs, compliance notes, or written records explaining the withdrawal of the mortgage offer, and all decisions appear to have been made verbally. He says this is material to the complaint, as it suggests Cambridge did not record a fair or transparent decision-making process before invoking its regulatory justification. Cambridge said it’s a small society and colleagues can meet to discuss and make decisions. I don’t think there’s anything untoward in that. Cambridge has written to Mr H and Mr M giving them its reasons for its decision. Mr H has recently raised new issues about how Cambridge dealt with him over the life of the mortgage. As our investigator explained, we can’t look into these issues here. Mr H should raise these issues with Cambridge. My final decision My decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr H and Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Ruth Stevenson Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --