Topaz Finance Limited trading as Heliodor Mortgages · DRN-6041893

The complaint Mr and Mrs M complain about how they have been treated by Topaz Finance Limited trading as Heliodor Mortgages (Heliodor) since their mortgage term ended and that Heliodor has not treated them the way it should treat vulnerable customers. What happened Mr and Mrs M have a mortgage that was taken with another lender in 2008 and has since been transferred to Heliodor. The mortgage was on an interest only basis and the term ended in October 2021. Mr and Mrs M asked for the mortgage to be extended at this time. Mr and Mrs M say they’d been told the mortgage would be extended, but Heliodor say it declined this given the arrears on the mortgage. Since this time, Mr and Mrs M have suggested a number of ways which the mortgage may be repaid, but none have resulted in the mortgage being redeemed. Mr and Mrs M have raised a number of complaints during this time as well. Some of which have been considered by our Service. A formal demand for repayment was issued in 2024 and again in 2025. In early 2025, Mr and Mrs M raised a new complaint with Heliodor saying it hadn’t taken into account the fact that they were vulnerable customers and hadn’t helped them as it should. They requested a further grace period in order to repay the mortgage. Heliodor said it has requested information on the various repayment strategies that Mr and Mrs M have said they planned to use, including pension funds, the sale of a relative’s property, the potential for an equity release mortgage and encashing investments they held. But Mr and Mrs M didn’t provide any of this information. Heliodor didn’t uphold the complaint and the balance remained outstanding. Mr and Mrs M referred their complaint to us and reiterated a number of previous complaint points they’d made as well. One of our Investigators looked into the complaint. She said that Heliodor had previously responded to a complaint about how it had treated Mr and Mrs M as vulnerable consumers in September 2024. As Mr and Mrs M didn’t refer that complaint to us within six months of Heliodor issuing its final response letter (FRL), the Investigator said these points were out of time for us to consider. The Investigator said we could consider how Mr and Mrs M had been treated since 23 September 2024, which was following the first FRL, and this complaint was referred to us within six months of another FRL Heliodor issued in April 2025. But she didn’t think Heliodor had acted incorrectly and didn’t think the complaint should be upheld. Our Investigator also noted that the complaint about the mortgage term being extended had previously been considered by one of our Ombudsman who issued a final decision not upholding that complaint. So, she thought that complaint point should be dismissed as it wasn’t appropriate for our Service to consider it again. Mr and Mrs M didn’t accept this, and maintained Heliodor hadn’t treated them fairly as vulnerable customers. The complaint was passed to me to review and make a final

-- 1 of 3 --

decision. I issued a separate decision setting out what points we would and wouldn’t be able to consider. In summary, this said we can only consider how Heliodor had treated Mr and Mrs M from 23 September 2024 onwards. This decision addresses that complaint point. 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 and Mrs M have presented their complaint to us in great detail and made many points in response to our Investigator’s opinion. I want to assure them I’ve considered everything they’ve said. I won’t respond in the level of detail they’ve submitted their complaint in. Nor will I address each and every point they’ve made. I mean no disrespect by this; it simply reflects the informal nature of our Service. Instead, I’m going to focus on what I believe the crux of this complaint to be – that Heliodor won’t now formally agree to extend the mortgage for a grace period and that it hasn’t treated them fairly as vulnerable customers. The starting point here is that Mr and Mrs M’s mortgage reached an end five years ago. A lender is entitled to expect repayment of a mortgage once it reaches the end of the term. A lender should support customers who reach the end of the mortgage term and are unable to repay their mortgage, and it’s right that a lender shows reasonable forbearance including giving them time to find other means to repay the mortgage. However, as I’ve said, it has now been five years since the mortgage was due to be repaid. So, I believe that Heliodor has been reasonable and shown forbearance during its dealings with Mr and Mrs M. A lender is entitled to expect the mortgage to be redeemed, and it’s not required to extend a mortgage indefinitely if there is no reasonable prospect of it being repaid. Having reviewed the contact notes, I can see Mr and Mrs M have put forward a number of suggestions since September 2024 of how they will repay the mortgage, including selling a family member’s property, taking an equity release mortgage and cashing in bonds they hold. However, when Heliodor has asked for further details of these plans, such as contact details for the advisor arranging the equity release mortgage or a copy of an offer, Mr and Mrs M have not been forthcoming in providing this. There’s a reasonable expectation that mortgage holders will work with the lender and engage in situations such as this, and I don’t believe Mr and Mrs M have done so. Whilst I have considered Mr and Mrs M’s vulnerabilities, and I am sorry to hear of the situation they find themselves in, I don’t think there is more that Heliodor should’ve done, even taking this into account. Mr and Mrs M have said the calls from Heliodor chasing mortgage payment have been excessive. But again, having reviewed the contact notes, there doesn’t appear to me to be an excessive amount of calls. Had Mr and Mrs M engaged more, or provided further details on their plans to repay the mortgage, I don’t think Heliodor would’ve needed to be in touch with Mr and Mrs M as much as it was. But, again taking into account the fact that the mortgage ended five years ago, and no method of repaying it in the near future has been established, Heliodor is entitled to take steps to ensure the mortgage is repaid, and this will include calls to better understand Mr and Mrs M’s plans. I’m satisfied it’s reasonable and indeed responsible for the lender to stay in touch, and I believe Mr and Mrs M needs to engage more. Otherwise, it’s possible Heliodor will start formal legal action. Mr and Mrs M have said Heliodor won’t provide a copy of its vulnerable customers policy to them, but there is no requirement for it to do so. As I’ve already said, I’m satisfied Heliodor

-- 2 of 3 --

has taken into account their vulnerability and shown reasonable forbearance given their situation. Moving forward, I don’t know where Mr and Mrs M are in their plans to repay the mortgage. But I’d strongly advise them to get in touch with Heliodor and keep it updated with their plans. And I’d remind Heliodor of its obligations to continue to treat Mr and Mrs M fairly. But I’m satisfied that to date, Heliodor has treats them fairly, so I’m not going to ask it to do anything further. My final decision Whilst I recognise Mr and Mrs M feel very strongly about this matter, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr and Mrs M to accept or reject my decision before 27 March 2026. Rob Deadman Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --