ARTICLE
4 July 2025

Shared Appreciation, Unshared Burden: The Ethical Failure Of Bank Of Scotland And Barclays Bank

TS
Teacher Stern

Contributor

Teacher Stern, established in 1967, is a full-service commercial London law firm with expertise in real estate, litigation, and commercial services. We offer a comprehensive range of commercial legal expertise. Our commitment lies in providing flexibility, responsiveness, and personalized service to our clients.

A top-class entrepreneurial firm we have a multi-disciplined approach, introducing ideas from a new perspective. Ranked in the Legal 500, we are recognized as one of the leading law firms in the UK across various specialist practice areas. Our expertise extends to large real estate and corporate transactions, complex litigation, and capital markets work. Additionally, we specialise in sectors such as real estate, hospitality & leisure, retail, technology & media, sport, and transport.

For nearly three decades, a large group of mostly elderly and vulnerable mortgage holders have endured the consequences of a financial product that promised security but delivered profound hardship.
United Kingdom Finance and Banking

For nearly three decades, a large group of mostly elderly and vulnerable mortgage holders have endured the consequences of a financial product that promised security but delivered profound hardship. The Shared Appreciation Mortgage (SAM), sold in the late 1990s primarily by Bank of Scotland (now part of Lloyds Banking Group) and Barclays Bank, was aggressively marketed in national newspapers as a safe and sensible form of equity release. But for many, it has become a lifelong financial burden.

The SAM offered borrowers a lump sum payment in exchange for a substantial share of up to 75% of the future increase in the value of their homes in addition to repayment of the original loan. While the right to remain in their homes until death was preserved, what was not protected was the borrowers' financial and future stability. As house prices soared, the cost of this pernicious product to the borrowers became catastrophic with consumers owing the banks in some cases 500 per cent of the amount originally borrowed.

These mortgages have marred retirement plans, erased family inheritances, and left elderly and vulnerable individuals with insufficient equity to move home or pay for care, trapping them in properties that are simply not suitable for their needs.

Both Bank of Scotland and Barclays Bank speak often about their ethical commitments to the vulnerable consumer.

Lloyds Banking Group, the parent company of Bank of Scotland, declares:

"We are committed to helping Britain prosper, and that includes acting with integrity, fairness and transparency... We support customers who are in vulnerable circumstances and treat them with empathy and care."

Barclays similarly asserts:

"We believe in doing the right thing... built on respect, integrity, service, excellence, and stewardship."

And yet, these statements stand in stark contrast to the banks' ongoing treatment of the thousands of SAM borrowers. What we are witnessing is not just a legal dispute, but a moral dissonance — a disconnect between the banks' stated values and their sustained, adversarial approach to these long-standing grievances.

What these vulnerable consumers and their families need is not a courtroom battle, rather compassion and a fair resolution that aligns with the banks' publicly promoted principles.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More