View more on these topics

Lenders warned on TCF after FOS mortgage age ruling

Mortgage lenders could fall foul of treating customers fairly rules if they apply generic lending criteria following a Financial Ombudsman Service ruling against HSBC, experts warn.

The FOS has upheld a complaint against the bank for unfairly rejecting a mortgage application on the grounds of age in the first case of its kind.

A couple in their forties, referred to as Mr A and Ms B, were turned down when applying for a joint £250,000 interest-only loan over an 18-year term.

HSBC rejected the application on the basis that Mr A would have been over 65 when the loan had to be repaid.

It said it was entitled to apply a maximum age policy and that it did so to mitigate the reputational risk of allowing customers to borrow into retirement.

But the FOS says the couple’s joint income would have been sufficient to meet the monthly repayments after Mr A reached 65. 

It says his professional circumstances meant he was unlikely to retire at that age and, in any case, he had a final salary pension scheme.

The FOS says: “Rather than considering Mr A and Ms B’s individual circumstances, it seems that the information the bank relied on included untested assumptions, stereotypes or generalisations in respect of age and wasn’t relevant to Mr A and Ms B’s circumstances.”

It adds that HSBC’s risk assessment was “flawed” and “inadequate”.

The FOS concluded the bank did not treat the borrowers fairly by refusing to consider their application “on the basis of Mr A’s age alone”.

The FOS has ordered HSBC to pay the couple £500 for distress. It initially proposed that HSBC reconsider their mortgage application but has now redacted that as HSBC has significantly changed its interest-only lending policy since the couple made their application in 2012.

Law firm DWF partner Harriet Quiney says: “The findings clearly demonstrate that customers must be treated as individuals and, while affordability in retirement is a factor that must be taken into account, lenders cannot rely on broad generalisations to deny mortgages to borrowers.”

Bill Warren Compliance managing director Bill Warren says: “Other borrowers in their 40s who see this decision will be asking their lender why they have been turned down.

“Lenders must look at the individual circumstances of each borrower. This is a prime example of not treating customers fairly.”

Recommended

Crystal Specialist Finance

Crystal Mortgages rebrands to become Crystal Specialist Finance

Packager Crystal Mortgages has rebranded as Crystal Specialist Finance. The Midlands-based firm has identified five areas it operates in – mortgages, bridging, commercial mortgages, development funding and second charges – and has created a specialist team for each. Managing director Joe Breeden says: “The name had become constrictive over the past decade as we moved […]

Business-Handshake-Finance-Deal-700.jpg

GE Capital puts lending unit up for sale in slimmed-down change of focus

GE Capital has put its specialist lending subsidiary, GE Money Home Lending, up for sale. In a note to brokers last week, the firm said it plans to reduce its size and concentrate on its industrial and manufacturing businesses. The note said: “GE Money Home Lending is among the platforms targeted for disposition.We anticipate being […]

Altmann-Ros-2010-700x450.jpg
4

Govt to appoint minister to stop age discrimination in mortgage lending

The Government will appoint a minister to stop lenders unfairly discriminating against older borrowers if it wins the next election. Ros Altmann, the Government’s older workers’ champion, will be made a peer and appointed as a minister responsible for financial consumer protection and education, if the Conservatives are in government after the election. Part of […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up
Comments
  • Post a comment
  • Peter Turner 22nd April 2015 at 11:01 pm

    So why, then, did FOS uphold all those complaints about endowments that ran into retirement without considering whether the complainant could afford to allow them to do so or not?