A property investor with bank debts in excess of £2 million has failed in a High Court bid to overturn his rejected complaint about alleged lending behaviour.
Joseph Walker was challenging a Financial Services Ombudsman decision over money he borrowed at the height of Northern Ireland’s housing boom.
His grievances included a claim that a Bank of Ireland employee forged his signature on documents.
But a judge dismissed his case after ruling that the FSO acted lawfully in dealing with his complaint.
Mr Justice Horner said: “The real problem was not the alleged behaviour of the bank, but the catastrophic fall in the price of property which meant that the applicant had overpaid for the properties which he had acquired and was not in a position to discharge his indebtedness.
“If the price of property had continued to rise rather than fall, it is inconceivable that the applicant would have had any complaint about the behaviour of the bank.”
Mr Walker, who lived at Hillside Crescent, Belfast, borrowed to invest in property just as prices had peaked.
His debts became insupportable once the market collapsed, leading the bank to seek possession of houses the loans were secured against.
He resisted the move and made a series of complaints to the FSO, which probes grievances about the provision of financial services.
In September 2011 the Ombudsman reached a final decision to reject the complaints about alleged bank behaviour.
Challenging that outcome through judicial review proceedings, Mr Walker sought an order which would quash the decision, declare it unlawful and force the FSO to come to a different conclusion.
One of his grounds of complaint was that the Ombudsman failed to find in his favour on allegations that the bank forged his signature on the original facilities letter and other documents.
He also contended that the mortgage for Hillside Crescent should have been residential rather than commercial.
Mr Justice Horner said it was clear beyond doubt that the money was lent to Mr Walker to buy property and accordingly must be repaid.
The judge pointed out that the FSO concluded that if any letters did have a forged signature which went against the borrower’s wishes he would have been expected to declare funds had been received in error.
It was also noted that Mr Walker signed further facilities letters which made clear that Hillside Crescent was to be part of the security for loans obtained for his property business.
“The FSO was entitled to conclude that the behaviour of the bank was neither unfair nor unreasonable,” Mr Justice Horner added.
“In the circumstances of this case I conclude that the FSO acted lawfully in considering and determining the complaints of the applicant. I therefore dismiss this judicial review.”