Topaz Finance Limited · DRN-6128622

The complaint Mr N complains about the service he’s received from Topaz Finance Limited trading as Melanite Mortgages. What happened Mr N took out a joint mortgage with another party many years ago. Mr N and the joint party have since gone through a divorce and Mr N considers he should no longer be party to, or be held liable for, the mortgage. I have set out in a separate decision why we won’t be revisiting Mr N’s complaints about not being removed from the mortgage and the consequences of that, along with other matters we have previously considered. As such, I won’t repeat the reasons for that here. In this decision, I will only be considering the following matters: - The service Mr N received on 24 July 2025. - That Melanite’s agent asked for Mr N’s phone number on 18 August 2025. - That Melanite sent Mr N notification that a payment arrangement was ending. - That it referred Mr N to a charity which he found offensive. - Mr N hasn’t received £75 compensation from the complaint response in July 2025. - Melanite didn’t call him back on 7 August 2025 after the call disconnected. When Melanite responded to these concerns it didn’t uphold most of Mr N’s complaint points, but it identified it could have provided better service by calling him back when his call got disconnected. It offered to pay Mr N £50 compensation. Mr N referred his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. The Investigator concluded that Melanite had already made a reasonable offer to put right the identified service issues. He didn’t uphold the remaining parts of Mr N’s complaint. Mr N didn’t agree and asked for an Ombudsman to review his complaint. 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. Mr N has raised many complaints with Melanite in recent years. And it’s clear he feels very strongly that Melanite has been treating him unfairly. I’m sorry to hear about how these matters have made Mr N feel. But, as I’ve explained in a separate decision and have summarised above, I will not be revisiting issues that we have previously made a finding on. This includes what I consider to be the main driver of Mr N’s concerns – that Melanite hasn’t removed him from the mortgage, and the consequences of that. For those reasons, I will make no comment or finding regarding those matters. It wouldn’t be appropriate for me to do that, no matter how strongly Mr N feels about his complaint. I’ve thought carefully about the matters I have considered which all relate to the level of

-- 1 of 3 --

service Melanite has provided to Mr N. I haven’t seen anything that leads me to conclude that Melanite’s agents have been rude or unprofessional towards him. Melanite has explained to Mr N why its agents may ask for his phone number. That’s because, in summary, its agents are trained to check up-to-date information is held for each customer when they call. I don’t consider it’s unreasonable for Melanite to want to ensure it has up-to-date information, to ensure it can reach its customers if it needs to do so. In any case, Melanite has added a note to the mortgage account, dated 8 July 2025, which Mr N can refer to when he calls. Melanite’s agents should then take that note into account and only call Mr N, as agreed, if the call gets cut off. I note that Melanite has recorded his phone number in this way so that he doesn’t receive automatic calls through its system – as Mr N has asked not to receive calls – but it still gives Melanite the ability to call him back should a call get disconnected. I think that’s a reasonable workaround, as although Mr N is party to the mortgage account and Melanite is, therefore, entitled to contact him about it, it takes into consideration that Mr N would prefer not to receive calls. I think that’s fair. As I’ve said above, Melanite is entitled to contact Mr N about the mortgage account as he is party to it. And it’s required under mortgage regulation to update its borrowers of certain events, such as when an account is in arrears. So, I don’t consider it acted unfairly when writing to him to let him know a payment arrangement was coming to an end. I appreciate he disagrees that he should be party to the mortgage, but I make no finding on that here for the reasons I’ve already explained. The fact is that Mr N is party to the mortgage currently and so it isn’t unfair or unreasonable for Melanite to write to him about it. I note that Melanite sign-posted Mr N to his GP and to two independent organisations following some comments he had made about his well-being. I’m sorry to hear that Mr N found this offensive. But I consider Melanite was acting in line with guidance published by the regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority, when sign-posting Mr N to third-party organisations with the intention that he may benefit from contacting them. I don’t think Melanite intended to offend Mr N and, instead, I’m persuaded it was trying to be helpful. I think it was fair for Melanite to suggest this support to Mr N in the circumstances. Melanite offered to pay Mr N £75 compensation in its response to a previous complaint. Mr N amended the acceptance form Melanite had sent him, changing the terms of his acceptance. He questions why Melanite didn’t pay the compensation to him when he had returned the acceptance form. Ultimately, Melanite set out the terms under which it was willing to pay £75 compensation to Mr N. I wouldn’t expect it to accept an amended acceptance form when, particularly looking at Mr N’s amendments, it appears he doesn’t in fact accept the offer. If Mr N does wish to accept the offer, in line with the terms under which Melanite has made it, then he would need to contact it directly. I don’t require it to do anything differently regarding this. Finally, I can see Melanite has accepted it ought to have called Mr N back following a call being disconnected on 7 August 2025. It has offered to pay him £50 compensation for the impact of this. I think Melanite’s offer fairly recognises the impact of what’s happened and so, I don’t require it to do anything further. I appreciate Mr N will be disappointed with the outcome of this decision. I am sorry to hear of the difficult situation he faces, and I do appreciate he would like to be in a position where he and the joint party can go their separate ways. However, there isn’t anything further I can fairly require Melanite to do, for the reasons I have explained above.

-- 2 of 3 --

My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. Topaz Finance Limited trading as Melanite Mortgages should, however, make the £50 compensation payment (for the impact of not receiving a call back), if it hasn’t already done so – and if Mr N accepts my decision. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr N to accept or reject my decision before 22 April 2026. Keith Barnes Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --