OneSavings Bank Plc · DRN-6243464

The complaint Miss M complains about her buy to let mortgage with OneSavings Bank Plc (OSB). She says that OSB hasn’t properly accounted for payments she’s made, and unfairly appointed receivers to manage the property. She says OSB didn’t make proper allowances for her vulnerability. What happened Miss M has a buy to let mortgage with OSB. She borrowed £714,000 on interest only terms over 32 years, with the mortgage beginning in 2018. The mortgage was on an initial fixed rate of 3.99% for the first five years. The mortgage had been in arrears in 2022, but Miss M had brought it back up to date by the end of the year. But it fell back into arrears during 2023 – Miss M cleared the arrears in November 2024, but by the following month the mortgage had gone back into arrears. During 2025, Miss M was in contact with OSB. In March, she discussed entering into a payment arrangement, but OSB said it would need to review her income and expenditure before agreeing to anything. Miss M said she would call back with details of her finances and was aiming to clear the arrears by May. In May, when the arrears hadn’t been cleared, OSB sent a letter before action threatening repossession proceedings. In June, Miss M called OSB and again asked about a payment arrangement. OSB asked for evidence of her financial circumstances. OSB said it tried to contact Miss M several times during July, without success. On 29 July, OSB issued a formal demand for the mortgage balance. On 1 August, Miss M sent OSB the evidence discussed in July. OSB says it tried again to contact her during August without success. It appointed receivers to manage the property on 14 August. Miss M complained. She said she had suffered recent close family bereavements and was experiencing related mental health difficulties, which she had told OSB about. She was keeping in regular touch with OSB, she had shared her financial circumstances and had received support from a debt charity in drawing up a budget. She was making efforts to regularise her payments and clear the arrears. She had made large payments in July, August and September. She asked for the receivership to be paused while her complaint was being considered, but OSB refused. Instead the receivers sent threatening letters to her tenants. OSB couldn’t explain how her payments had been allocated. And it didn’t respond to her complaint in a timely way. OSB said it had appointed receivers after issuing a final demand, and when no arrangement to pay was in place. It said it had taken Miss M’s circumstances into account, but it was reasonable to take enforcement action given the level of arrears and the amount of time the mortgage had been in arrears, and because no agreement had been reached. It said it had applied all payments properly. It said it had put the receivership on hold and would stand the

-- 1 of 4 --

receivers down if Miss M met its requirements by 31 October – including clearing the arrears in full, paying OSB’s and the receiver’s fees and resuming making monthly payments on time. Our investigator didn’t think the complaint should be upheld. He said that when receivers were appointed the mortgage was over £11,000 in arrears and while Miss M had made some payments, others had been missed, not made in full or made late. He was satisfied that OSB had properly accounted for all the payments Miss M had made. He said that OSB had tried to work with Miss M and had taken account of her vulnerability. But when the mortgage continued to be in arrears with no arrangement in place, it wasn’t unreasonable to appoint receivers. Miss M didn’t agree and asked for an ombudsman to review the complaint. She said OSB hadn’t treated her fairly or given her enough time to resolve things. She was in touch with OSB and trying to get the mortgage back on track, but it didn’t make clear how payments were being allocated and said she had missed payments when payments were made. Instructing receivers wasn’t proportionate – and the receivers remained in place even after the arrears were cleared. OSB hadn’t taken proper account of her vulnerability. 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’m very sorry to hear of Miss M’s bereavements and the other difficult circumstances she’s been dealing with. I hope she’ll accept my condolences on her loss. I’ve looked very carefully at everything that’s happened. I know this will disappoint Miss M, and I do understand how she feels about what has happened. But I don’t think I can fairly uphold this complaint. At the time the receivers were instructed, the mortgage was in arrears. During 2025, up to the point the arrears were cleared, Miss M had made the following payments: Month Payments due Payments received (in total) January £3,569.28 £2,000 February £3,569.28 £4,000 March £3,569.28 £500 April £3,569.28 Nil May £3,569.28 £3,550 June £3,569.28 Nil July £3,569.28 £3,600 August £3,569.28 £3,600 before receivers appointed £1,569.28 after

-- 2 of 4 --

September £3,569.28 £3,569.28 October £3,569.28 £11,873.52 Miss M complains that OSB didn’t always credit the payments appropriately. But I haven’t seen any evidence of payments made which weren’t credited to the account. The issue is with the date payments were made. If Miss M made payments during a month before the due date at the end of the month, those payments were credited to the arrears not the payment for that month. But in the end that doesn’t make any difference. What matters is whether, overall, Miss M had made all the required payments or not. If OSB used a payment to reduce the arrears, and then increased the arrears again by not using it for the monthly payment, the account would be in exactly the same position by the end of the month if the payment had been used for the monthly payment and the arrears had been left the same. Either way, by the end of the month the balance would be increased by the amount of interest charged and reduced by the amount of payments made, and the arrears would still be the overall difference between the total of payments made and payments due. I’m not therefore persuaded that OSB has handled the payments unfairly. By the time OSB sent the letter before action and then instructed the receivers, the mortgage was in substantial arrears. And this wasn’t the first time – it had been in arrears several times before in recent years. I do appreciate how difficult Miss M’s circumstances were for her. But I also think that OSB did act fairly and reasonably in trying to work with her and reach a payment agreement – it explained what information it would need, and it waited some months before taking recovery action. I also have to take into account that this was not a regulated mortgage contract and the property isn’t Miss M’s home. As this is a consumer buy to let mortgage, OSB does need to show reasonable forbearance, but the rules relating to mortgages secured over the borrower’s home don’t apply here. Even when the receivers were appointed, I think OSB continued to show forbearance. It asked the receivers to pause taking any further action, to prevent further costs being run up, and it explained to Miss M what would need to happen before it could hand the property back to her. I’m satisfied those requirements were reasonable. They included clearing the arrears as well as OSB’s and the receiver’s costs. OSB also wanted the receivers to visit the property to check that it was in reasonable condition and that there were tenants in place. That was a reasonable requirement too – the property being in lettable condition and actually having tenants in place is important, because it means there will be rental income, which makes it more likely the mortgage will be sustainable in the future. It wasn’t unreasonable for OSB to want that check to be done before handing the property back. For all those reasons I’m satisfied OSB didn’t act unfairly. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint.

-- 3 of 4 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss M to accept or reject my decision before 22 April 2026. Simon Pugh Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --