Topaz Finance Limited trading as Rosinca Mortgages · DRN-6229887

The complaint Miss T complains that Topaz Finance Limited trading as Rosinca Mortgages unfairly increased the mortgage exit fee after it took over her buy to let mortgage. She wants Rosinca to apply the lower fee, and pay compensation of £100. What happened Miss T took out a buy to let mortgage in 2004. This was transferred to Rosinca in late 2025. Rosinca wrote to Miss T following the transfer. It sent a copy of its tariff of charges. It said its mortgage exit fee is £190. It said Miss T’s previous lender’s equivalent charge was £100. Miss T has only a small mortgage balance (less than £1,000) left to repay. She’s unhappy that the exit fee increased. She says the original fee was only £50. Miss T says she should at least have had the opportunity to repay the mortgage before the exit fee increased. Miss T called Rosinca and made a complaint. Rosinca didn’t agree to arrange for a manager to call Miss T back. Rosinca offered £50 compensation for poor customer service. Rosinca said the previous lender reviewed its fees tariff regularly. It provided letters sent by the lender to Miss T to support this. It said increases in its fees were in line with industry standards and reflected the cost of the work involved. Our investigator said lenders can change their tariff of charges at any point. After Rosinca took over the mortgage its tariffs applied. Our investigator said a call from a manager would not have changed the outcome. However, Miss T’s anxiety and upset would have been limited if a manager had confirmed the outcome wouldn’t change and she would need to bring her complaint to this service. Our investigator said Rosinca should pay £100 for the impact on Miss T. Rosinca agreed. Miss T didn’t agree. She said a significant increase in the exit fee from £50 to £190 without notice was not fair. 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. Rosinca provided copies of letters sent to Miss T in 2015, 2017 and 2019 by her previous lender when it changed its fees. It also sent a copy of her previous lender’s fees schedule. This says the lender’s fee for the administration of redemption (the equivalent of Rosinca’s mortgage exit fee) is £100. I think Miss T would reasonably have known that her lender could change the fees that apply to the mortgage. This included the exit fee which had increased from £50 when she took out the mortgage to £100 when it was transferred to Rosinca.

-- 1 of 2 --

Miss T’s previous lender wrote to her before the transfer. It said the terms and conditions of the mortgage wouldn’t change as a result of the transfer. It said the owner of the mortgage is responsible for administering the mortgage, including setting the interest rate, fees and charges. Rosinca wrote to Miss T to confirm it was now the owner of the mortgage. It sent a copy of its tariff of charges. This said its mortgage exit fee is £190. The original mortgage offer said changes to the terms and conditions were only valid if made by the lender in writing. So the lender could make changes to the terms and conditions. But, in any case, Rosinca didn’t change the mortgage terms and conditions. The only change was the new tariff of charges. Miss T wasn’t told specifically that the mortgage exit fee would change after the mortgage was transferred. But I think Miss T was aware that lenders can and do change their fees and charges, given that this had happened a number of times while she had the mortgage. If she was concerned about this and in a position to repay the mortgage she could have done so. This is a buy to let mortgage. So rules on mortgage regulation don’t apply in the same way as for a regulated residential mortgage. I’d expect Rosinca to provide clear information about the fees and charges that apply to the mortgage account, and I think it did this. I don’t think it’s fair and reasonable to require Rosinca to apply a lower mortgage exit fee to Miss T’s account when she repays the mortgage. I think it’s entitled to apply its usual fee, in accordance with the tariff of fees. Miss T told us she was anxious and not receiving a call back meant the matter dragged out longer than necessary. Rosinca agreed to pay compensation of £100 for not agreeing to arrange for a manager to call Miss T back. I think this is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. My final decision My decision is that Topaz Finance Limited trading as Rosinca Mortgages should pay £100 to Miss T, as it agreed to do. It can deduct any amounts it has already paid. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss T to accept or reject my decision before 26 April 2026. Ruth Stevenson Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --