It's time for an Interest Only Mis-selling campaign

_bankrupted

ManAtHome wrote: »

Would be interesting if you 'won' - you'd have to cough up to bring the mortgage account to the same balance as a repayment..! (it has more in common with endowment 'mis-selling' than bank chanrges).

Actually, taking this to it's natural conclusion, if such a case was won (:rotfl:), then the OP would be granted in effect cancellation of the loan (without penality) with the full amount required to be paid back to the Bank and the Bank returning all interest payments made.

But the OP has had the free use of a property for the duration of the loan and a court would equate a monetary value to this based on commerical rental rates and offest it against the interest the bank has to pay back.

The net outcome would be the OP turfed out of his property, with no repayment of interest charges.

You really do have to question the intelligence of someone that enters into such a deal knowing that the loan can never be paid and then not understand the implications of the probable outcome of a successful win in court.

Edit:

The OP is more stupid than I thought

_bankrupted

Actually, we have been rather cruel to Mikeb22, maybe an explanation of mis-selling is appropriate.

"The ethically questionable practice of a salesperson misrepresenting or misleading an investor about the characteristics of a product or service"

The widespread media coverage of endowment mis-selling of the 80's and 90's is that these products were sold with the "promise" that they would pay off the capital of a interest only mortgage on maturity. Many people found that due to weak stock market performance these products were not going to pay off the loan at the end of the 25 year period.

However, people taking out interest only mortgages (termed endowment mortgages in the 80's) took out a saving plan (the endowment) to pay off the loan, and as explained above it was the savings part of the whole mortgage deal that was failing to deliver. People were not told that the endowment may not pay off the loan if the stock market performed badly. This was the grounds for mis-selling.

You have been sold an interest only mortgage.

When you took out the mortgage it was an interest only mortgage it was explained and you knew that the loan was not being repaid.

Today it is an interest only mortgage, and you know the loan is not being repaid.

Tomorrow it will still be a interest only mortgage and you will still know the loan is not being repaid.

The product is doing exactly what it was sold as and will continue to do so.

There is no mis-selling.

andysdad_2

Mikeb has asked for advise and received universal dismissal of his idea and questions about his intelligence. So as a slight balance I must give him some slight credit. He came on this forum and asked for free advise on his stupid idea before going to see a costly lawer

Old_Git

mikeb222 wrote: »

We, like a lot of folk, brought our house using interest only because it was the cheapest way and nobody checked that we could pay it back. We were gambling that house prices would continue rising of course, but we still had no way of paying off the capital when end of term came.

This can't be right!
Surely the mortgage company are jointly responsible.

You should have been hoping your income would improve and you could start repaying the capital . The only people who should have been gambling house prices would increase are landlords .

LeeSouthEast

This smells of windup.

Wutang_2

LeeSouthEast wrote: »

This smells of windup.

Definitely...its a good one though

_bankrupted

Yes.. I think I have been had!!!

_Andy_

Seems like the OP was never had great ideas even back in '06

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=303731&highlight=

Gorgeous_George

I took out a repayment mortgage. If only I'd chosen interest only

With interest rates at an all time low (I'm paying 1.24%), my repayment element would be better off invested in a Building Society account.

Who can I sue?

Muppet.

GG

magpiecottage

I have actually dealt with a complaint that an interest-only mortgage was missold.

I pointed out that, in that case, it was more than six years old and because the lender issued annual statements, which included warnings of the need to arrange a means of repaying it, I argued that this was enough to timebar it.

The complainant to my client to FOS who accepted my argument and threw it out.