Norton Finance PPI

liberty_lily

Hi there,

We had a mortgage with Swift Advances taken out through the broker Norton Finance in 2006. This was redeemed after a year. The mortgage had Single Premium PPI attached which we believe was mis-sold.

Having done a Subject Access Request to Swift, we sent off a mis-sold PPI letter which we copied to Norton. Swift did not respond (no surprises there!) but Norton said they would investigate.

When they responded they sent a CD with the recording of the phone conversation in which the subject of PPI was first raised. They say on the CD that paperwork will be sent out showing the mortgage costs both with and without the PPI. They go on to say they cannot advise us on the PPI but that it is optional. The CD is not terribly clear but there is something about there being an incentive to repay the mortgage early - we were not informed in writing of there being any such incentive and indeed when we repaid the mortgage after only a year we had to pay far more than we had originally borrowed.

Norton say the CD proves the PPI was not mis-sold.

We have all our original paperwork from this mortgage but nothing to show the cost of the mortgage with/without the PPI. I don't believe they ever sent us anything to show how expensive the PPI actually was.

At the time we needed to borrow the money urgently as we had arrears with our main mortgage lender and from what I remember the agreement came with the PPI section already filled in and as we were desperate we signed the form and returned it, believing Swift had made it a condition for our approval.

The paperwork we do have says this was a non-advised sale.

We have contested what Norton have said regarding the PPI not being mis-sold and have not yet had a reply. Am I right in thinking that the onus is on them to prove we received the paperwork in question?

I was wondering if anyone had managed to prove mis-selling where a recording such as this exists?

Many thanks for your help!

liberty_lily xxx

di3004

Hi there

In regards of one of my recordings with Nemo, they said the same thing, yet the FOS picked up on it and this was how ours was resolved, Nemo did not think it was mis sold, but the recordings proved otherwise.
Again it was a jumpy CD and seemed like parts were missing, but there was enough on there to help support our case.

However, if this was the final response, please do go to the FOS, they will investigate this for you, good luck and please keep us posted.;)

liberty_lily

Hi Di,

Thank you for your response - it's most appreciated.

It's very interesting to hear that in your very similar situation your complaint was upheld by the FOS - I had initially thought that this was dead in the water, but you have given me hope!

Once I have heard back from Norton I will definitely be filing a complaint with the FOS (assuming Norton continue to deny that it was mis-sold). I know it's likely to be a long drawn out process, but hopefully the fact that it was a Single Premium policy will go in our favour as well.

I will update this thread if and when I hear anything.

Thanks again,

liberty_lily xxx

di3004

liberty_lily wrote: »

Hi Di,

Thank you for your response - it's most appreciated.

It's very interesting to hear that in your very similar situation your complaint was upheld by the FOS - I had initially thought that this was dead in the water, but you have given me hope!

Once I have heard back from Norton I will definitely be filing a complaint with the FOS (assuming Norton continue to deny that it was mis-sold). I know it's likely to be a long drawn out process, but hopefully the fact that it was a Single Premium policy will go in our favour as well.

I will update this thread if and when I hear anything.

Thanks again,

liberty_lily xxx

Hi there and your welcome.;)

Yes your right, to have been sold the Single Premium in the first place you do stand a strong chance here, so not to worry, I'm sure you will win this, even if it does go as far as the FOS.

We look forward to hearing the outcome of this, fingers crossed.
Di
X