misold mortgage

traz39

Sent on Central Trust Headed Paper

Letter reads,

Dear Mr and Mrs +++++++

THIS LETTER IS IMPORTANT-IT CONCERNS THE MORTGAGE ADVICE WE GAVE YOU IN +++++ 2006 AND REQUIRES YOU TO TAKE ACTION TO REVIEW WHETHER OR NOT OUR MORTGAGE ADVICE WAS APPROPIATE

In +++++++ 2006 we gave you advice about your mortgage options and arranged a mortgage for you.We have set out below the details of the recommendations we gave you.

Why we are writing to you?

Following an internal review C****** T**** has become aware that we may not have fully established that the mortgage that we recommendend to you was affordable,based on your personal circumstances and your income and outgoings at the time we gave you mortgage advice.

This is particularly important if the mortgage we recommended to you was either:

an intrest only mortgage, or

the length of the mortgage extended beyond your state retirement age and, therefore beyond when you might still be in employment; or

Involved a remortgage that incurred penalties (sometimes known as "Early Redemption Charges or ERCs) which were then added to your new mortgage

As a result we may have recommended a mortgage that was not in fact affordable to you. they have now written back to me saying they found nothing wrong with the way the mortgage was sold just wondering if i should send this to ombusmen?????????

DVardysShadow

traz39 wrote: »

Sent on Central Trust Headed Paper .... they have now written back to me saying they found nothing wrong with the way the mortgage was sold just wondering if i should send this to ombusmen?????????

An important part of the story appears to be missing for any meaningful answer to your question. Did they just send you the the 2 letters? or did you write to them in the meantime? If so, what did you say to them?

traz39

they sent the letter themselves out of the blue we did pay a early redemtion fee they said they checked phone calls etc and found nothing wrong infact they said we were better off each month.

antrobus

From the looks of things I'd guess that Central Trust have been required by the FSA to review all their mortgage offers in order to ensure that they weren't mis-sold. So they've written to the OP saying 'hey, we're going to check that we didn't make a mistake when we sold you a mortgage' and then written again to say 'we've had a look and it's ok'. Nothing to worry about I'd have thought.

redpete

traz39 wrote: »

they sent the letter themselves out of the blue we did pay a early redemtion fee they said they checked phone calls etc and found nothing wrong infact they said we were better off each month.

Do you agree that you were better off each month? If so then why do you think it might be of interest to the ombudsman?

dunstonh

Firms often audit historical cases. Either as part of a normal compliance check or because they have found errors in other cases and want to make sure there are no errors elsewhere (and deal with them if there is). This may be forced by the FSA or it may be an internal check for trends.

So, a letter like this doesnt mean you have been mis-sold. It means that the documentation that the firm has on file is not sufficient for the compliance people to decide whether the advice given at the time was suitable or not. Hence why they are asking questions.

Often what happens with these is the person gives the information that is needed and no wrong doing is found (other than the poor record keeping of the adviser) or that information that was initially missing turns up and shows no wrong doing.

just wondering if i should send this to ombusmen?????????

1 - you cannot go to the ombudsman without going through the complaints process first
2 - they have confirmed your file shows no issues so what would your reason for complaint be?

traz39

didnt know whether these had been fined by fsa i read on here somewhere that having to pay a redemtion figure is not good when consolidating i am also sure they took into consideration my daughters disablitiy money is this right ????

ILW

What are you hoping for?

traz39

the redemption figure back maybe put us back where we werer had we not had changed the mortgage

opinions4u

traz39 wrote: »

the redemption figure back maybe put us back where we werer had we not had changed the mortgage

You don't want that if the mortgage acutally made you better off though.

Stevo75

traz39 wrote: »

Sent on Central Trust Headed Paper

Letter reads,

Dear Mr and Mrs +++++++

THIS LETTER IS IMPORTANT-IT CONCERNS THE MORTGAGE ADVICE WE GAVE YOU IN +++++ 2006 AND REQUIRES YOU TO TAKE ACTION TO REVIEW WHETHER OR NOT OUR MORTGAGE ADVICE WAS APPROPIATE

In +++++++ 2006 we gave you advice about your mortgage options and arranged a mortgage for you.We have set out below the details of the recommendations we gave you.

Why we are writing to you?

Following an internal review C****** T**** has become aware that we may not have fully established that the mortgage that we recommendend to you was affordable,based on your personal circumstances and your income and outgoings at the time we gave you mortgage advice.

This is particularly important if the mortgage we recommended to you was either:

an intrest only mortgage, or

the length of the mortgage extended beyond your state retirement age and, therefore beyond when you might still be in employment; or

Involved a remortgage that incurred penalties (sometimes known as "Early Redemption Charges or ERCs) which were then added to your new mortgage

As a result we may have recommended a mortgage that was not in fact affordable to you. they have now written back to me saying they found nothing wrong with the way the mortgage was sold just wondering if i should send this to ombusmen?????????

I notice from your posts on other forums that this was sent to you a few years ago. I doubt it took them this long to reply to you and if their response was issued to you more than 6 months ago then the Ombudsman is a pointless exercise as your rights for referral will have expired.

Presumably along with this initial letter they sent you some kind of questionnaire to establish affordability if they hadn't done so at the time? And furthermore if they have already responded to your complaint and found that you were in fact better off, how can you have any qualms with them??

It seems to me like you're just jumping on the mis-sale bandwagon!