Topaz Finance Limited trading as Heliodor Mortgages · DRN-6248285

The complaint Miss H is unhappy that Topaz Finance Limited trading as Heliodor Mortgages haven’t taken possession of the property that she holds jointly with another party despite being aware of her situation since 2012. She is also unhappy that Heliodor will not accept her sole permission to voluntarily surrender the property. What happened Miss H took this mortgage out with her ex-partner in December 2004. She said she was forced to leave her home and explained her position to Heliodor at the time, and she asked them to repossess the property. She said her ex-partner was living at the property but wasn’t making any payments towards the mortgage and also suspects he was renting it out. Miss H believes that Heliodor have allowed her ex-partner to financially abuse her through their joint connection, and this is still ongoing. She said the court agreed an order of sale and an occupational order to get her ex-partner out of the property, but Heliodor are ignoring this. Miss H has previously raised this complaint with Heliodor, and they provided their final response on the matter on 10 July 2024. That complaint looked at Miss H’s unhappiness that Heliodor would not take possession of the property. She wanted Heliodor to freeze all interest and additional charges until the property was sold. Miss H raised another complaint to Heliodor, and they provided their final response on the matter on 1 May 2025. This was about Miss H wanting Heliodor to accept voluntary possession, but they declined to do this as the mortgage was joint, and they would need both parties to agree to a voluntary possession regardless of the court order. Miss H brought the complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service where it was looked at by one of our investigators who was satisfied that Heliodor had acted fairly. Miss H disagreed and in summary she made the following comments: • Miss H would like to know if Heliodor contacted her ex-partner to ask him for permission to voluntarily surrender the property and if they didn’t - why. • Heliodor should not have disregarded the court order. • Heliodor have been considering litigation for over 13 years so why didn’t they do this in 2012? • Miss H wants to know what action Heliodor took against her ex-partner who was renting the property out, keeping the money and not paying the mortgage. • Miss H has mentioned that Heliodor haven’t taken into account Consumer Duty by acting in good faith or avoiding foreseeable harm. As Miss H disagreed with the investigator, she asked for the complaint to be reviewed by an Ombudsman, so it’s been 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.

-- 1 of 3 --

I have already issued a decision to Miss H explaining what parts of her complaint we are able to consider. I will be able to look into the concerns she has raised regarding Heliodor not accepting her request to voluntarily surrender the property and the fact that she believes they are ignoring the court order. I have also already explained that we only have Miss H’s consent to look into this complaint so there are certain complaint points that Miss H has made that I am not going to be able to comment on. Miss H is unhappy that Heliodor will not accept her consent to voluntarily surrender the property. As the investigator has already explained, both Miss H and her ex-partner are jointly and severally liable for this mortgage. I appreciate that Miss H no longer lives in the property and hasn’t done so since 2012, but she is still a joint party to the mortgage. It would not be reasonable for Heliodor to accept Miss H’s sole consent to surrender the property when it is held joint with another party. Heliodor haven’t done anything wrong by explaining that they would need both parties’ permission to voluntarily surrender the property – so this isn’t something that I am going to ask Heliodor to do. Miss H has asked what actions Heliodor have taken to contact her ex-partner to ask for permission but this is something that I am not going to be able to comment on because he is not party to this complaint. I am satisfied that Heliodor have acted fairly and reasonably under these circumstances. I have seen a copy of the court order from May 2024 which says that Miss H’s ex-partner is responsible for all interest and capital due in respect of the mortgage and he must indemnify Miss H against all arrears in respect of the mortgage. Miss H is unhappy that Heliodor have ignored this. The court order is clear what actions need to be taken, but that court order does not explicitly say that Heliodor need to take action. A court order doesn’t affect a mortgage contract between a lender and their customers. The court order involves Miss H and her ex-partner, and this is a dispute that is between both of them. Heliodor is purely a neutral party here. The court order doesn’t have anything to do with Heliodor, but the mortgage contract is between Miss H and her ex-partner and Heliodor. So, the actions that Heliodor are taking – or not taking – is in respect of that alone. I therefore can’t agree that Heliodor should remove Miss H from the mortgage or accept her permission to voluntarily surrender the property on that basis alone. Miss H has said she hasn’t been treated fairly under the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) principles. She also says that Consumer Duty requires firms to avoid foreseeable harm and act in good faith. While the FCA’s Consumer Duty does say that all firms should act to deliver good outcomes and avoid foreseeable harm, that does not mean that a firm has the responsibility to prevent all harm. Heliodor have explained why they will not accept Miss H’s sole consent to voluntarily surrender the property and that is reasonable. In this case the mortgage was agreed jointly, and Miss H was not led to believe that Heliodor would only agree to certain things solely from one party. So this was an inherent risk that Heliodor would not have to accept sole instructions without both parties’ consent. It’s reasonable for Heliodor that they understood that Miss H had accepted that risk by taking out a joint mortgage. I think Heliodor have done what they can to support Miss H and have been fair in their dealings with her. I do appreciate that Miss H is going through a very difficult time and while I empathise with her, I can’t agree that Heliodor have acted unfairly or unreasonably here.

-- 2 of 3 --

My final decision For the reasons given above, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss H to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Maria Drury Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --