Bank of Scotland plc · DRN-5947774

The complaint Mr C complains that Bank of Scotland plc sold his mortgaged property for less than it was worth following repossession. What happened Mr C fell into arrears on his mortgage and so Bank of Scotland took possession of the property. Bank of Scotland appointed an asset manager to act on its behalf during the sale. Mr C’s father, acting under power of attorney for his son complained that the property had been misrepresented and was being sold by agents at undervalue in an unethical and inappropriate way. This was despite previous higher valuations and marketing attempts by the family. Bank of Scotland and its asset manager responded to Mr C’s complaint. Unhappy with the responses he got, Mr C came to our Service. An Investigator looked at the complaint and didn’t uphold it. Mr C didn’t agree and asked for his case to be decided by an Ombudsman. Whilst this complaint has been brought by Mr C’s father on Mr C’s behalf, for ease I’ll refer to Mr C as the complainant throughout this decision. And as the asset manager was acting as an agent of Bank of Scotland, I’ll refer to all actions as Bank of Scotland’s throughout my decision. 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. I’ve given careful consideration to all the submissions made by both parties, but I won’t address each and every point that has been raised. I’ll focus on the matters that I consider most relevant to how I’ve reached a fair outcome – in keeping with the informal nature of our Service. Bank of Scotland obtained two independent valuations of the property. An estate agent valued the property at £750,000 and recommended an asking price of £800,000. A surveyor valued the property at £800,000 and recommended an asking price of £800,000. The property was placed on the market on 13 March 2025 for £850,000. Due to lack of suitable interest in May 2025 the asking price was reduced to £750,000 and in August 2025 it was further reduced to £700,000. A sale was agreed in early 2026 for £711,000. During that time Bank of Scotland received around 30 offers from 10 different buyers – ranging from £500,000 to £755,000. All early offers for less than £750,000 were rejected by Bank of Scotland. Three potential buyers offered above £750,000 but these fell through for reasons outside of Bank of Scotland’s control. When selling a property in possession, Bank of Scotland is required to get independent

-- 1 of 2 --

valuations and use them as a guide when marketing the property. That’s what it did here – it relied on the opinions of qualified professionals. I don’t think Bank of Scotland acted unfairly here. During possession a lender should get the best price it can. But it shouldn’t hold out too long for an unrealistically high price while interest on the debt mounts up. That isn’t always an easy balance to strike, but I don’t think Bank of Scotland acted unfairly in this case. Having considered everything I don’t agree that Bank of Scotland sold the property for less than it could’ve obtained, nor do I think it held onto it for longer than it should to try to achieve that price. Mr C claims that the property was being marketed with misleading information, including references to subsidence, which he says had been resolved and covered by insurance. The surveyors report from March 2025 makes no reference to subsidence, and so I can’t see this influenced the market appraisal. Nor was the property marketed as showing signs of subsidence. A further structural survey took place in August 2025. I understand this was triggered by Mr C’s communications with the bank in which he mentioned subsidence. The report confirmed that there was no evidence of structural movement for the majority of the property, only the conservatory. Bank of Scotland has confirmed that this had no bearing on the market appraisal. The asking price was reduced in August 2025 to generate more interest in the property, which I don’t think was unreasonable given the lack of higher offers and engagement from potential buyers to date. Lastly, I note Mr C has raised concerns about poor marketing practice by the estate agent and inaccuracies in the surveyors report and the structural survey. Complaints about estate agents need to be directed to the property ombudsman. And complaints about a RICS qualified surveyor can be escalated to RICS. These aren’t matters that I can consider in this complaint against Bank of Scotland. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold Mr C’s complaint against Bank of Scotland plc. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 27 March 2026. Arazu Eid Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --