Carrington Carr Home Finance in administration

dunstonh

NyseriA wrote: »

Perhaps, although we were not aware that they were an insurance company sales agent, having been referred to them for mortgage advice.

In 2008, their initial disclosure document (the very first piece of paper you should be supplied) stated the status of the adviser. That said, it is not uncommon for whole of market mortgage advisers tied to one insurer to make out they are independent without actually saying as much (they will say they can search any lender etc but make no mention of insurances).

Estate agent advisers have a very poor reputation. Should always be avoided apart from local firms that use independent advisers.

magpiecottage

The "independent" broker who is tied to one insurer will only be "independent" for the mortgage.

If, as seemsc to be the case here, the insurance/mortgage were sold after 14 January 2005, then the insurer they are tied to will be liable. In the case of AWD this was Legal & General who must answer your concerns.

If you feel anything was not made clear to you - including a proper comparison of costs of existing short term lending and replacement long term lending over the lifetime of each loan, you should complain to L&G.

If the response is not satisfactory go to FOS.

dunstonh

Just for clarification, I am not supporting CC/AWD in my recent responses. I am just pointing out potential issues in any complaint. They had an awful reputation within the industry and everything said about them on this thread is probably true. Please do not measure others by this company. However, when making a complaint, documentary evidence is key. Verbal allegations can carry some strength but they become diluted by time and will usually be trumped by documentary evidence, it that exists.

magpiecottage

dunstonh wrote: »

when making a complaint, documentary evidence is key. Verbal allegations can carry some strength but they become diluted by time and will usually be trumped by documentary evidence, it that exists.

Agreed.

However, in the case of mortgage advice on or after 29 April 1998, mortgage advice on or after 31 October 2004 or insurance advice on or after 14 January 2005 FOS can also look at suitability (it can do so earlier if the business complained to subscribed to a relevant predecessor at the time and still exists.)

So the complaint in this instance is not that NyseriA signed but that the recommendations on which they relied were inherently unsuitable.

NyseriA

You've both been more than helpful with your responses, it's much appreciated

magpiecottage

NyseriA wrote: »

You've both been more than helpful with your responses, it's much appreciated

Do please tell those stooges of the CMCs who claim we simply represent the "industry" - by which they mean banks that neither of us work for - of this.