Published decisions
251
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving The Mortgage Matters Partnership, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Page summary
251 published decisions involving The Mortgage Matters Partnership, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
251
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
78.1%
196 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 05 Oct 2018
Published decisions
251
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
78.1%
196 upheld decisions
Leading product
Payment protection insurance (PPI)
222 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Affordability Assessment Failure
20 tagged decisions
The Mortgage Matters Partnership appears in 251 published decisions in this corpus. 78.1% of those decisions were upheld, which gives a public view of how often complaints involving this firm ended in a fully upheld outcome in the final published set.
Payment protection insurance (PPI) is the firm’s clearest product exposure in the published decisions, with 222 decisions and an upheld rate of 87.4%.
The Mortgage Matters Partnership's decision trail runs from 2013 to 2018. That range gives enough public history to see whether complaint exposure has been broad-based or concentrated into certain years.
In the latest year represented here, The Mortgage Matters Partnership appeared in 159 published decisions with an upheld rate of 95.6%.
Affordability Assessment Failure is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to The Mortgage Matters Partnership in the published decisions. In this corpus, those themes are the most stable public proxy for complaint “type”.
Disp, Fsma, Mcob, and others are the most visible precedent signals in the firm’s published decisions. That gives extra context on the rules and fairness arguments appearing most often around the firm.
Representative cases
5 examples shown
Mr S and Mrs Y have complained about the way the Mortgage Matters Partnership (Mortgage Matters) sold them a payment protection insurance (PPI) policy.backgroundIn 2007 Mr S and Mrs Y applied for a mortgage. Mortgage Matters arranged the mortgage, and at the same time ... (5 pages)
View source decisionMr and Mrs M say that The Mortgage Matters Partnership (“Mortgage Matters”) mis-sold them two mortgage payment protection insurance (“PPI”) policies in 2008.backgroundI issued my provisional decision on 10 August 2018. A copy of my provisional decision is attached and ... (6 pages)
View source decisionMr and Mrs S have complained about the payment protection insurance (“PPI”) policies they were sold along with their mortgage. The policies were for the benefit of Mr S only and would cover him if he was unwell or had an accident and couldn’t work. Mr and Mrs S say ... (1 page)
View source decisionMrs H has complained (and on behalf of the estate of Mr H) that The Mortgage Matters Partnership (‘Mortgage Matters’) mis-sold her a payment protection insurance (‘PPI’) policy.backgroundI issued my provisional decision on 3 August 2018. A copy of my provisional decis... (5 pages)
View source decisionMr and Mrs K have complained that The Mortgage Matters Partnership (“Mortgage Matters”) mis-sold them a payment protection insurance (“PPI”) policy. backgroundI issued my provisional decision on 3 August 2018. A copy of my provisional decision is attached and forms part ... (6 pages)
View source decision