Bank of Scotland plc trading as Halifax · DRN-6166135

The complaint Mr M complains that Bank of Scotland plc trading as Halifax is unfairly asking him to pay a shortfall debt. Mr M says his ex-partner lived in the property and dealt with the mortgage. Mr M says Halifax failed to take his circumstances into account. What happened Mr M took out a mortgage with Halifax in 2008, jointly with his ex-wife. He says he left the property in 2010 when the marriage broke down, and since then he’s had limited information about the mortgage. The mortgage fell into arrears. Halifax took possession in mid-2024 and the property was sold in mid-2025. Halifax has asked Mr M to repay the shortfall debt. Mr M says this has caused significant hardship. He’s the primary carer for a child diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorder, which makes it hard to maintain full time work. He says he struggles to meet day to day living costs and can’t repay the shortfall of about £75,000. Mr M says this has caused him stress and anxiety. He says Halifax should have asked more about his circumstances and taken into account that his caring responsibilities mean he’s vulnerable. Our investigator said we can’t look into the following parts of Mr M’s complaints. First, his complaint (in 2019) that Halifax didn’t give him access to all account information. Second, his complaint (in 2021) about Halifax contacting him about the arrears and that it didn’t remove him from the mortgage account. Our investigator said these complaints were brought to us outside our time limits. Halifax issued summary resolution communications in 2019 and 2021. In both cases, this was more than six months before the complaint was brought to us in late 2025. The complaint proceeded on this basis we would not look into these parts of Mr M’s complaint. Our investigator said while Mr M had asked Halifax not to call him, Halifax had sent written correspondence to Mr M. So he was aware of the arrears and the status of the account. Halifax had asked Mr M if he was vulnerable and it was for Mr M to explain his situation. Our investigator said Mr M remained jointly and severally liable for the mortgage debt. He said Halifax isn’t responsible for Mr M’s dispute with his ex-wife. Mr M didn’t agree and asked that an ombudsman re-consider the complaint. He asked that I consider whether it’s fair and proportionate for Halifax to pursue him for the shortfall, given his long-term lack of occupation or control over the property since 2010, his severe financial hardship, and his ongoing role as the primary carer for his child. He expressed concern that Halifax continued recovery action despite his vulnerability and while the dispute was ongoing. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and

-- 1 of 3 --

reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. When Mr M and his ex-wife took out the mortgage they agreed to repay the money they borrowed. They took out the mortgage on a joint and several basis. That means Halifax can ask either or both account holders to repay the debt. Mr M says he didn’t have access to the account which meant he was unable to resolve the arrears directly with Halifax, despite his willingness to do so. Halifax says there was no restriction on Mr M accessing the account. He had to pass security in the same way as any other customer. When Mr M contacted it in 2019, Halifax updated his address so that he’d receive copies of correspondence, including annual statements. Mr M contacted Halifax in 2021 asking it to stop contacting him about the arrears. Halifax stopped calling Mr M, but continued to send written correspondence to him. It provided copies of correspondence sent to Mr M such as letters about the arrears and legal costs related to legal action on the account. I think Mr M had the information he needed to make payments to bring the mortgage account up to date, if he was able and willing to do so. In September 2025 Halifax wrote to Mr M saying the property had been sold and there was a shortfall amount to pay. It sent a copy of the completion statement to Mr M. This set out the sales price, legal costs and other costs, the amount due to Halifax and the shortfall. I think Halifax is entitled to ask Mr M to repay the shortfall debt. It doesn’t change matters that Mr M didn’t live at the property. Halifax isn’t responsible if Mr M was unable to reach agreement with his ex-wife about how to deal with the property or the mortgage. Regardless of any agreement (or dispute) between Mr M and his ex-wife, Mr M remained jointly and severally liable for the mortgage debt. Halifax doesn’t have to provide Mr M with copies of, or information about, its communications with his ex-wife. Halifax told Mr M that while it can’t discuss the other account holder with him, it could confirm that it will make every effort to recover the debt from all parties named on the mortgage account. Mr M says Halifax didn’t ask if he cares for a disabled dependant, but only asked if he had a disability himself. I can’t agree that this meant Mr M had no opportunity to disclose his situation. He could simply have told Halifax that he was a carer and how this affects him, for instance that it impacts his finances as it makes it hard to maintain full time work. When a lender is made aware of a customer’s vulnerabilities I’d expect them to respond fairly and sympathetically. That doesn’t mean they have to write off the debt. Halifax told Mr M it will consider offers towards the outstanding debt, but can’t guarantee that its loss recoveries team will agree to settle the debt for less than the amount outstanding. It said Mr M should contact the third party business responsible for collecting the debt to discuss what he can afford to pay. While lenders can hold recovery action while a complaint is with us, they don’t have to do so. I’d encourage Mr M to engage with Halifax (or the third party business responsible for collecting the debt) with the aim of agreeing a suitable plan to repay the shortfall.

-- 2 of 3 --

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 M to accept or reject my decision before 3 April 2026. Ruth Stevenson Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --