Mortgage Single Premium PPI

dunstonh

WombleSW20 wrote: »

Just read through this - can someone explain why this mortgage was 'unregulated'? As far as I was aware everything was covered under MCOB from cirica 2004 onwards. Am i missing something?

Is it commercial, buy to let or a second property mortgage?

liberty_lily

Hi Wombles,

It wasn't a commercial, buy-to-let or second property mortgage but a second charge mortgage - although Swift can't seem to make up their minds whether it was a mortgage or a loan........they have referred to it as both!

The amount borrowed was £58k + which included £5k of PPI as well as over £3k of fees etc all of which would incur interest over the life of the mortgage/loan - although I was not aware of this at the time.

The agreement was signed at the end of May 2006 and settled in November 2007 - the paperwork is headed 'Unregulated Agreement' and the FOS say it doesn't come under their jurisdiction because it relates to a consumer credit agreement dating from prior to 6th April 2007. I am under the impression that previously unregulated agreements became regulated under the new regs, but this was did not as it was already settled, although I'm sure the experts will correct me if I am wrong here

Unfortunately despite imminent success with reclaiming the mis-sold PPI I have ground to a halt with reclaiming the charges and it would appear my only chance of success with this is a court claim - and Swift are renowned for defending these vigorously

Liberty_lily xxx

dunstonh

• A regulated loan is a loan to an individual, secured by a first charge on residential
property, and where the property is for the use of the borrower or a close relative.
• A non-regulated loan for MLAR purposes is all other residential lending to
individuals that is not regulated. It includes buy to let lending, second charge lending
and, in some cases, further advances on loans that were originally taken out before
regulation came into effect.

copied and pasted direct from an FSA doc.

WombleSW20_2

I find this case very confusing. The single premium product is a product regulated under ICOB. As long as this was was sold after 5th January 2005, it is regulated under ICOB rules which is within the jusidiction of FOS.

Dunstonh's extract from the FSA further confuses me as it mentions 2nd charge lending as an non-regulated loan. I know for a fact that 2nd charge loans are not exempt from ICOB rules. Most of the complaints here are from PPI sold on 2nd charge (secured) loans.

liberty_lily

WombleSW20 wrote: »

I find this case very confusing. The single premium product is a product regulated under ICOB. As long as this was was sold after 5th January 2005, it is regulated under ICOB rules which is within the jusidiction of FOS.

Dunstonh's extract from the FSA further confuses me as it mentions 2nd charge lending as an non-regulated loan. I know for a fact that 2nd charge loans are not exempt from ICOB rules. Most of the complaints here are from PPI sold on 2nd charge (secured) loans.

Hi Womble,

I agree, the whole thing is totally confusing

However, the PPI aspect was covered by the FOS jurisdiction - its only the charges that are not. I specifically asked the FOS whether they could look at my charges complaint and they said no, for the reason I stated above. I tried the FLA - they were a totally pointless waste of space so I'm back at square one.

Liberty_lily xxx

WombleSW20_2

Don't bother trying to go down the FLA route - definitely a case of turkeys voting for Christmas......

My guess is that your best chance of getting any type of compensation is to focus on a FOS complaint around the SP. I can't comment on the charges element of this as it's not my area of specialism.

Good luck!

liberty_lily

Hi folks!

A further update on this -

Since my previous post whereby I said I had returned the signed authority form to the broker giving them permission to request the information they need to calculate the settlement from the lender, the broker has not been forthcoming with the refund calcs.

I have written to the broker chasing them up a couple of times but they merely blame the lender and say they need extra time on top of the 6-8 weeks they originally predicted.

I contacted the FOS, thinking that as this was an ombudsman's (rather than merely an adjudicator's) decision and therefore legally binding on the company concerned, they would be able to assist in urging them to comply, but was told they could do nothing further to help at this stage.

The FOS suggested I allow the broker and lender additional time to gather the information they require regarding the premiums and interest paid on the PPI (info I already have!) but wouldn't expand on exactly how much extra time they should be allowed

It is now 3 and a half months since the ombudsman made his Final Decision and it is going to be 12 weeks in a few days since the signed acceptance form was received by the FOS, yet I am no closer to seeing my money refunded.

I cannot believe that despite this decision being legally binding, the two firms concerned seem able to get away with delaying matters indefinitely and that no-one can force the issue forward :mad:

I am trying to be patient, but I was wondering whether anyone had an experience of taking legal action to have an ombudsman's final decision enforced please, as I feel this is possibly my only hope in getting my money back?

Many thanks,

Liberty_lily