Lloyds Bank PLC · DRN-6250731

The complaint Mr and Mrs P are unhappy that Lloyds Bank PLC lost the deeds to their property which prevented a planned sale of part of the land. What happened On 30 August 2024 Mr and Mrs P’s solicitor made a request to Lloyds to release the deeds to their property as they planned to sell part of the land at auction. On 17 September 2024 Lloyds confirmed it couldn’t find the deeds and they would need to be reconstituted. Lloyds offered to cover the cost of this. As a result of the loss, Mr and Mrs P were unable to proceed with the planned auction of the land. They have explained proceeds from the sale of the land were intended to fund the purchase of other land they currently rent and repay an overdraft. So while waiting for the deeds to be reconstituted, Mr and Mrs P would incur the cost of the continued rental of the land as well as interest on the overdraft. They’ve said they also incurred additional costs from their solicitor and withdrawing from the auction unexpectedly as well as the considerable time they’ve spent putting the information required together to reconstitute the deeds. Our investigator upheld the complaint and concluded Lloyds should pay reasonable costs and increase the £250 compensation it had already paid to £500. Ultimately, Mr and Mrs P were unable to accept these recommendations so the complaint has been passed to me to decide. 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. It isn’t in dispute in this case that Lloyds made a mistake in losing the deeds. It agreed that in order to rectify the situation it would pay to reconstitute the deeds and any other losses Mr and Mrs P have suffered as a result of the error. The dispute here is about how much Lloyds should pay Mr and Mrs P in compensation for the error. Should Lloyds be liable for the loss of the initial sale Mr and Mrs P have said Lloyds is liable for costs incurred as a result of the land not having been sold when intended. But there’s no guarantee the land would’ve been sold in 2024. I understand Mr and Mrs P have said there was a lot of interest in the land in 2024 and they’d also received a private offer for the land. But despite this, it wasn’t guaranteed this interest or offer would’ve led to a successful sale.

-- 1 of 3 --

Because of this, any loss as a result of this sale not going ahead in 2024 is speculative and not something I can reasonably hold Lloyds responsible for. Costs related to the auction Lloyds accepts that as a result of the loss Mr and Mrs P had to withdraw the land from a planned auction in 2024 and has agreed to reimburse them for costs relating to this. I’ve seen evidence that Mr and Mrs P paid £500 to a solicitor for searches before the auction and this amount was paid using a credit card. Lloyds should reimburse the fees paid and any interest incurred by Mr and Mrs P on this amount. Mr and Mrs P have also provided evidence of a £600 payment made to a separate party in relation to auction searches carried out in 2025 (when the second auction took place) and an invoice for £1,200 to the same party with no evidence this amount has been paid. I’ve asked Mr and Mrs P for further evidence of what these costs relate to and how they differ from the searches carried out by their solicitor in order to establish if they are a loss caused by Lloyds. I’ve explained without this I don’t think Lloyds is liable for these costs. Mr and Mrs P haven’t provided any further evidence in relation to this so it seems this point isn’t in dispute. I’ve also seen evidence provided by Mr and Mrs P of the £720 auction fee paid, but the evidence suggests this was paid after the 2025 auction rather than the 2024 auction that was cancelled. So it doesn’t seem to be in dispute that Mr and Mrs P were able to defer the payment of the fee from the cancelled auction to the second auction that went ahead. As Mr and Mrs P had opted to sell the lan at auction, it seems they always would’ve paid one auction fee. As this is the position they’re in now, I don’t think there’s evidence of any further loss relating the cancellation of the auction. Reconstitution of the deeds Lloyds offered to arrange for its solicitors to reconstitute the deeds. Mr and Mrs P opted instead to have their own solicitor do this work, with significant input from them regarding the history of the property and the various land purchases that made up the whole property and had taken place over the last forty plus years. Lloyds accepted this, and has agreed to reimburse them for the £1,583.40 charged by solicitors for the cost of this. Mr and Mrs P also believe they should be paid for the hours they have spent putting together the information required in order to reconstitute the deeds which they’ve said in total took them over 45 hours. They’ve said if their solicitor had completed this work it would’ve cost £200 - £300 per hour and so Lloyds should make them an offer to reflect this beyond the £500 it has previously agreed to as recommended by our service. But I’m satisfied that overall the £500 we’ve recommended is sufficient compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused in this case. Mr and Mrs P have explained they didn’t believe Lloyds’ solicitor, or their own, would be able to accurately reconstitute the deeds due to the property’s complex history and the way parcels of land had been bought and sold over the years. And I understand and accept this. But as a solicitor didn’t carry out the work and charge for it accordingly, what a solicitor might’ve charged isn’t relevant here. I accept Mr and Mrs P have given a considerable amount of their time to this situation and this would’ve been avoided had Lloyds not lost the deeds. And so like the investigator I

-- 2 of 3 --

believe they should be compensated for this and I’ve taken it into account. But it doesn’t follow Lloyds should compensate them at a solicitor’s professional rate. I understand Mr and Mrs P may believe their work in reconstituting the deeds has ‘saved’ Lloyds money, and they’re currently attempting to negotiate and increase in the amount it has offered them in relation to this which they are free to do. It’s clear the loss of the deeds caused Mr and Mrs P inconvenience in re-arranging the sale of the land and in the hours they spent providing information to reconstitute the deeds. I can also see this situation would’ve caused them distress and worry throughout this period. But taking all of this into account, I’m satisfied the £500 previously recommended is sufficient compensation for this in line with our service’s guidelines. Putting things right - Lloyds should reimburse Mr and Mrs P for the £1,583.40 paid in costs to reconstitute the deeds - It should pay the interest Mr and Mrs P have incurred on this amount from the date of payment to the date of settlement upon receiving evidence of this - Lloyds should reimburse Mr and Mrs P for the £500 paid to solicitors - Mr and Mrs P have said this amount was paid on a credit card. Providing this account was in Mr and/or Mrs P’s name, it should pay any interest incurred on this amount upon receiving evidence of this - It should pay 8% on this amount from the date the credit card balance was repaid until the date of settlement upon receiving evidence of this (if Mr and Mrs P evidence they’ve been deprived of the funds) - It should pay an additional £250 for the distress and inconvenience this situation has caused, bringing the total distress and inconvenience payment to £500. - My final decision I uphold this complaint and direct Lloyds Bank PLC to pay the redress outlined above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr and Mrs P to accept or reject my decision before 23 April 2026. Faye Brownhill Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --