miss sold mortgages

fishes2

Thanks I will do a DSAR and contact the IFA to find the information as we have no idea why the mortgage term is 25 years but will be interested to find out as if my partner has no pension at 47 years old even if he took one out then it would never be enough to cover a mortgage.
will keep posted when I have further information.

fishes2

Have enquired about this and there is a charge for each capital payment, also they will not agree to transfer the mortgage into joint names although I have a good credit record. My partner is self employed so other companies interest rates are very high if we apply elsewhere for a joint mortgage. Although I trust my partner I am reluctant to put large ammounts of cash into the property as I also have a daughter to consider. Looks like we have to just get married !!!!!

tifo

fishes2 wrote: »

there is a charge for each capital payment.

reclaim it, could possibly be unfair. Many people reclaim ERC.

dunstonh

My partner is self employed

Crickey it just gets worse. Is he aware that he gets less state pensions than an employed person? He really is in financial state and heading to poverty.

reclaim it, could possibly be unfair. Many people reclaim ERC.

Many people try. Most fail. Indeed, it was mainly only the early complainers that had some success with this where the ERC was not on the mortgage offer letter. The lenders caught out by that soon rectified it. I dont think you will find many successful complaints on ERCs for about 5 years or so now. The charge is considered fair and legal and it is pretty obvious why it exists and justifiably so.

fishes2

yes he is aware that he will have a reduced state pension, but he was also self employed when this mortgage was taken out thats another reason for the confusion as to why he was allowed this mortgage term.

tifo

dunstonh wrote: »

Many people try. Most fail. The charge is considered fair and legal and it is pretty obvious why it exists and justifiably so.

The OP should still try as the charge can be a lot of money.

Is there a legal precedent (court case) for this charge being fair?

dunstonh

Is there a legal precedent (court case) for this charge being fair?

How many times do we have to repeat this on so many threads? UK law does not require a court case to show that a charge is fair.

The OP should still try as the charge can be a lot of money.

Where in this thread does it say that an ERC has been paid? The mortgage is 5 years old so there is unlikely to be an ERC in place as most last only as long as the deal. It is possible that the charges mentioned for capital repayments are for ad hoc payments only and not regular overpayments. It could be that we are in a tail end of an ERC period (op says 5 years, so that could be rounding up).

Question to fishes2: What happened to the money that was raised with the mortgage? Did it buy a new property? Did it clear existing debts? Was it used to make another purchase?

HughJarse_2

dunstonh wrote: »

How many times do we have to repeat this on so many threads? UK law does not require a court case to show that a charge is fair.



But Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations and s140a and s140b of the CCA put the requirement of proof at the feet of the dominant party in the contract (The lender) to prove that the charges are fair.;)

The lenders cannot prove the charges to be fair and just pay up. :beer:

dunstonh, I am both perturbed and confused as to why you continue to spout complete nonsense regarding consumers rights to challenge charges levied by lenders.

You state (whether on this post and/or others) that the FSA and OFT position on charges may have changed post the Supreme Court decision on bank charges.:mad:

The Supreme Court ruling was solely applicable to personal current bank accounts, nothing else. All other charges are challengeable - and more than likely reclaimable, but the FOS are useless. Claimants will be forced to go to Court...........

Where they will win.......... you state there are no Judgments ruling these charges to be unfair. That is because the lenders bottle out and pay up, usually requiring the claimant to sign a confidentiallity agreement.

Claimants will agree to this confidentiallity because they are getting their money back.

If you search on here for Close Premium Finance you will find details of a claimant who successfully reclaimed charges post the OFT losing at Supreme Court.;)

Please provide your learned explanation as to why charges are no longer reclaimable post the Supreme Court ruling?

Or in the alternative, stop misadvising people from starting perfectly valid claims, that the lenders will pay in full, because they will not disclose their dirty charging regimes to the County Courts.:mad:

dunstonh

dunstonh, I am both perturbed and confused as to why you continue to spout complete nonsense regarding consumers rights to challenge charges levied by lenders.

Sorry? I have not said that consumers have the right challenge charges. I have said that you cant assume charges are unlawful or unfair just because you think they may be. I have told tifo a few times now that if he is that confident then he should take it to the courts. Until he does, then his opinion doesn't matter. It is fair until proven otherwise. The rest i am going to ignore as it has no relevance to this thread and it would not be fair on the OP for it to be taken off subject.

HughJarse_2

dunstonh wrote: »

Sorry? I have not said that consumers have the right challenge charges. I have said that you cant assume charges are unlawful or unfair just because you think they may be. I have told tifo a few times now that if he is that confident then he should take it to the courts. Until he does, then his opinion doesn't matter. It is fair until proven otherwise. The rest i am going to ignore as it has no relevance to this thread and it would not be fair on the OP for it to be taken off subject.

I'm sorry but I do believe that tifo has an opinion that matters. But I'm neither pompous nor self righteous.

I also believe that anybody who has joined this site in the hope of gaining some useful advice, should be given correct and valid advice.

If a defendant in a claim of this type does not enter a defence, then surely that is as good as an admission. It follows that if a lender is unwilling or unable to defend a claim that their charges are unfair, it is likely or probable that they are unfair.

But I'm sure you will vehemently disagree dunstonh, because people should never incur such charges in the first place.