Countrywide Principal Services Limited · DRN-6210037

The complaint Miss L complains that Countrywide Principal Services Limited trading as Countrywide Mortgage Services didn’t advise her to obtain a survey of her property. Since buying the property, she’s discovered it has significant defects. Miss L says she was unfairly pressured to use Countrywide and solicitors connected to Countrywide. Miss L asks for an apology, disclosure of all communications and internal notes, compensation for her losses, and details of Countrywide’s professional indemnity insurer so that she can pursue a claim for negligence. What happened Miss L took mortgage advice from Countrywide in 2022. She wanted to let out her property and needed to remortgage with a buy to let mortgage. And she intended to buy a property to live in, so needed a residential mortgage. Miss L found a property to buy. Countrywide recommended a let to buy mortgage and a residential mortgage, which completed in December 2022. After moving into the property, Miss L says she discovered extensive structural damage, severe damp, and serious roof problems requiring full renovation before the house was even habitable. She says this caused significant financial loss, deterioration of her mental health, relationship breakdown, and severe life disruption. Miss L says this would have been avoided if Countrywide had advised her to instruct a homebuyers report or structural survey of the property. Miss L says she didn’t know the lender only instructed a desktop valuation and didn’t understand that this wasn’t a survey and wouldn’t reveal the true condition of the property. Miss L says the estate agents, Countrywide and solicitors were connected which created a conflict of interest. She says she was pressured to use Countrywide and the solicitors, and they put their own interests before hers and influenced her decisions. Our investigator said Miss L was aware that the lender instructed a desktop valuation and the valuer didn’t visit the property. He said while brokers can explain the different types of valuations, there’s no regulatory requirement for Countrywide to advise on the property’s condition or to recommend a homebuyer report or structural survey. Our investigator said there was no evidence Countrywide required Miss L to use a particular solicitor or estate agent, or that Countrywide ought to have known if Miss L didn’t understand the limitations of a desk top valuation. Miss L didn’t agree. 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. Where the evidence is incomplete or contradictory, I make my decision based on the

-- 1 of 4 --

balance of probabilities – that is, what I think is more likely based on the available evidence. The events complained about took place in late 2022. Regulations in place at the time required Countrywide to treat Miss L fairly and communicate in a way that’s clear, fair and not misleading. Before making a lending decision, mortgage lenders ask for a valuation of the security property, to help them decide whether the property is suitable security for the loan. The valuation is instructed by and carried out for the benefit of the lender. It’s for the lender to decide whether to instruct a physical inspection of the property or rely on a desk top valuation. The lender is entitled to ask the mortgage applicant to pay a fee for the valuation. Some mortgage products include a fee-free valuation. Here, the lender instructed a desk top valuation. It charged a fee of £100. The fee was set out in the mortgage illustration. Countrywide isn’t responsible for the lender’s decision to instruct a desk top valuation or charge a fee. Miss L says that Countrywide didn’t explain the limitations of the lender’s valuation, or advise her to instruct a survey of the property. The mortgage application completed by Countrywide and submitted to the lender requested a valuation. There isn’t evidence available from that time – such as a call recording or notes – as to whether Countrywide did or didn’t discuss other options with Miss L. There isn’t any evidence as to whether it did (or didn’t) discuss the risks of relying on the lender’s valuation. Miss L says her property was later found to have serious structural defects that would have been identified through a physical inspection. She said if she’d been properly advised that the lender’s desktop valuation did not assess the property’s condition or been encouraged to obtain her own survey, she’d have done so and avoided considerable financial loss. I think it’s unlikely matters would have been different if the valuer had visited the property. A valuation is not the same as a full structural survey or homebuyer’s report. Miss L told Countrywide in an email in May 2025 that the serious issues with the property were not immediately apparent and only emerged after she began living in the property. I can’t fairly find that a valuer would have seen these issues if they’d visited the property. But, in any case, Miss L was aware that only a desktop valuation was carried out, and that this was limited in scope. Countrywide provided copies of emails with Miss L on 2 September 2022. Countywide told Miss L: “Property valuation has been provided by an automated valuation which has come back at £225,000…”. Miss L said: “That’s great – but what does that mean? As in what difference does it make to everything?” Countrywide responded: “The valuation was done remotely so they didn’t need to enter the property. In this instance your valuation has already been completed. There is nothing further we need to do about the valuation.…” Miss L was aware that the valuer didn’t enter the property, so could not have assessed its condition. She’d have known that she didn’t receive a report from a surveyor about the condition of the property. If this was something she expected she could have raised this at the time. The above email exchange happened on 2 September 2022, and the purchase didn’t complete until December 2022. So there was time for Miss L to arrange a survey if she wanted to do so. Countrywide was giving mortgage advice. I don’t think it had to encourage Miss L to arrange a survey of the property. Ultimately, it was Miss L’s decision whether to arrange – and pay for – a full structural survey or homebuyer’s report before deciding whether to buy the

-- 2 of 4 --

property. I don’t think Countrywide misled Miss L that this had been carried out by the lender. Miss L told us about her health conditions. Some of these were diagnosed after she took out the mortgage. Miss L says Countrywide was aware that she received personal independence payments related to her mental health conditions, and that she’s a vulnerable customer. She says it should have taken extra care to ensure she understood key information and was not put under pressure. The issue here relates to whether Miss L was made aware that the lender had instructed a desktop valuation, which is limited in scope and means the valuer didn’t visit the property. As I said, I think she was. I’m not persuaded that Countrywide was – or ought reasonably to have been – aware if Miss L didn’t understand this. Miss L discovered, after buying the property, that it has defects that she will have to pay to have put right. I don’t think Countrywide is responsible for this, or for Miss L’s decision to buy the property without a survey. I don’t think it’s fair and reasonable to require Countrywide to pay compensation to Miss L for the cost of remedial work, any related inconvenience or for her stress. Miss L says she was pressured (by the estate agent) into using Countrywide, which is linked to the estate agent and solicitor. She says this creates a conflict of interest. She says her experience falls within the definition of conditional selling, as described on a consumer website, and she wasn’t offered unbiased choices or warned about the consequences of proceeding without independent services. Miss L says Countrywide, the estate agent and the solicitor all had an interest in the transaction completing and this was why she wasn’t advised to have a survey on the property, despite this being standard and essential practice. As a consequence, she’s found herself with a property with defects. She says she would not have proceeded with the purchase if she’d had the benefit of a survey. Miss L met with Countrywide in early July 2022. It seems this was the result of a visit to an estate agent linked to Countrywide. This was more than a month before she found and had an offer accepted to buy a property which was marketed for sale via the estate agent. It seems Countrywide provided contact details and price estimates for solicitors to Miss L. Initially, two firms of solicitors were acting (one for the let to buy re-mortgage and one for the purchase and residential mortgage). The lender for the residential mortgage required that one firm of solicitors act on both (this firm would have had to be on the lender’s panel). Miss L raised a complaint at the time, but this related to the additional fees charged. Miss L didn’t raise any concerns about being uncomfortable with the choice of solicitors. There’s no bar on mortgage advisers recommending or providing contact details for other businesses, or themselves being recommended. But it’s for the customer to decide who to appoint. Miss L didn’t provide evidence that she was required to use Countrywide (or that it required her to use a firm of solicitors connected to it) or that she was unfairly pressured into doing so. Miss L didn’t describe circumstances that would suggest to me she was subject to conditional selling arrangements. Based on the available evidence, I can’t fairly find that Countrywide acted inappropriately in this respect. I’d add here that the fact that Countrywide was recommended by the estate agent, or that it recommended the solicitors, doesn’t change my view about the survey. As I said, Miss L had enough time to instruct a survey if she wanted to do so, and there’s no evidence that Countrywide misled her about the limited scope of the lender’s valuation. Ultimately, it was Miss L’s decision to buy a property without a survey.

-- 3 of 4 --

Miss L says Countrywide advised her to offer the full asking price for the property, materially increasing her financial exposure. I can’t see that this issue was part of the complaint that Miss L raised with Countrywide and brought to us. That means I can’t fairly look into it here. If Miss L remains concerned about this, she should raise her concerns with Countrywide. 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 Miss L to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026. Ruth Stevenson Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --