Mis-Sold Mortgage?

ILW

glowballs wrote: »

ILW... Aren't you missing the point of an 'Advisor'?? - to ADVISE?

If you went to the CAB and spoke to an 'Advisor' wouldn't they advise the BEST course of action? - Yes, therefore I'd EXPECT the mortgage advisor to 'advise' me of the best mortgage and the potential pit falls...

If I was looking for blame I'd get it to one of these online mis-selling companies...

As for paying more in rent, I'd doubt that very much... Buy hey, like others on here you're all the fountains of all knowledge, the oracles...

I would guess you went to an advisor because you wanted a mortgage. He advised you on a mortgage deal which could could have accepted or declined. Were you told anything that was untrue?

R_P_W

How did the advisor cook it to make it look like you could afford it?

holly_hobby

Ok, lets calm down a bit and take a step back, posters here are hoping to assist, but being defensive and antagnostic to their responses (even if you feel they are unfair or inaccurate), isn't going to achieve the professional help you desire .... so lets start again.

Duns. comments, I promise, are not a personal accusation, but one where as part of an assessment process of a complaint the individuals capacity to both understand and absorb basics such as costings, term of loan i.e 30 & 29 = 59, the legal requirements of the mge and its sum exceeding the value of the property, etc are considered - as if an adviser proceed to advise and sell to such an individual without a capable person being present, there would be very serious questions to be addressed.

You have however confirmed that you were 29 at the point of sale (POS), and had and have a decent IQ, so thats all good.

Ok lets take each point.

You sought a mortgage (first time buyer ?), and attended an advisor.

As part of the fact find process, it appears that you declared you had outstanding rolling/unsecured credit.

It again appears, that it was considered prudent by all, to roll up the credit into the mge, to no doubt improve your monthly disposable income and affordability, whilst enjoying a lower rate of interest (as the unsecured or together element of the mge, was charged at the same payrate as the mortgage itself).

The mortgage required with the addition of the debt, increased the LTV to in excess of 100% - meaning that you were in negative equity from outset - which to be fair, would have been clear, given that you have confirmed that you have a decent level of intelligence (observation not accusation !).

Some yrs down the line, your financial circs have changed dramatically, you now have dependants, and despite rolling up what credit you had at the time of the original sale, have apparently incurred more debt (not an accusation, an observation !), which you have subsequenlty defaulted on and ended up under a debt management plan (unfortunate and can happen to the best of us), whilst you furthermore still find yourself in negative equity (having not made any lump sum repayments post completion to the account to take account of the inflated LTV as a result of the added personal loans, possibly coupled with a drop in the market).

Its unfortuate that things have worked out this way for you, but I fail to see how the adviser has mis-advised you (mortgages became regulated Oct 2004) - unless you had savings and/or were able to afford to repay the shortterm borrowings you held, and really had no need or requirement for a 100%+ mge - was this the case ?

You mention a term of 30 yrs - whilst of course mges can have a maximum term of 40 years - best advice in the case of all debt, is to recommend the shortest possible affordable term (to minimise the overall cost of borrowing).

Now as I said in my earlier post, the 30 yr term could be as a result of 1 of 4 things ...

1. A repayment mortgage - 30 yrs was the shortest affordable term

2. An endowment (interest only) mortgage - 30 yrs was the shortest affordable term for the repayment (top up) plan(s)

3. A pension mortgage - 30 yrs coincided with the vesting age of the pension/occupational scheme and the tax free lump sum reqd to repay the debt

4. The individual wanted/requested a longer term to afford them the opportunity to minimise monthly costs, whilst giving them the time to raise a family etc and then downsize without the added requirement and cost of a repayment vehicle - again this would typically be a budget driven exercise. (NB - in todays market any remaining interest only lender DOES require evidence of a repayment vehicle).

Does any of the above fit with your sale ?

NRock assessed affordability from your salaries and the reqd term - which as the mge was agreed was apparently suitable under their affordability criteria.

Broker assessed budget from the info provided - which if stated as lower than reality, can't be his fault to have acted upon.

The mge offer would have gone to your Solicitor, broker and you - for all parties to verify the terms to be as reqd.

The illustrations would have clearly noted costs, terms and overall costings - again for the broker AND individual to verify acceptable.

Hope to help

Holly

dunstonh

glowballs wrote: »

Ok, lets break this one.


"Unless you are mentally unable to understand simple things like this then there is no reason for complaint"

Who the hell do you think you are, discussing my 'mental ability'... I came here asking for Advice, not some IDIOT to grief me...

I expect an apology for those comments immediately.

I am fully and mentally able to absorb this information, but without you knowing what information was given to me, what documentation the solicitor agreed etc I fail to see how you can query my ability.

I'd guess I have higher academic grades than you do, although not very knowledgable on mortgages at 20-odd years old!

When you made the post we do not know your mental capacity. Consumer protection is greater for those with limited mental capacity and that is an area which could have applied. Hence why I mentioned it. As you say you feel you do not have any mental health issues then that can be put to bed and you cannot use it as a reason for complaint. No allegations were made against your mental capacity. There was a thread on here some months back from someone who did not disclose a mental illness until later in the thread. So, we have to consider these things.

As for the rest of your rant, I very much doubt that is the case but doesnt matter if it is. I understood the concept of paying back money that you borrowed from childhood. Also, I spent my early 20s building up savings and waiting until I had a deposit before buying and have not had a DMP. So, you are beating me on that front. I will let you have that one though.

Lets stick to basics on this.

1 - You were told what the monthly payments were when you bought the mortgage. What made them unaffordable later on?
2 - You were put on a 30 year term but ended up in a DMP. So, clearly a shorter term would not have been suitable. A longer term may well have been if anything.
3 - short term expensive debts were put into cheaper debt but you still ended up on a DMP. Had you not rolled the expensive debts into cheaper debt then the DMP would probably have come earlier. You had the debt already. The mortgage broker did not create the debt. He just put it onto something with a lower interest rate to keep your monthly costs down.

Wh05apk

holly_hobby wrote: »

NRock assessed affordability from your salaries and the reqd term - which as the mge was agreed was apparently suitable under their affordability criteria.

Broker assessed budget from the info provided - which if stated as lower than reality, can't be his fault to have acted upon.

This being the key part, they would base affordability on the facts at the time of application, which would presumably have ben with both of you working, no dependents, and your debts having been rolled up, they would not base it on you taking further loans/credit cards etc, having kids, and possibly one of you stopping working, if you had realistically expected to do any of that you should have taken it into account at the time, maybe building in a greater margin of affordability - which would probably have meant either buying somewhere smaller or renting, in which case from the limited info provided, I suspect you would still be in a DMP now?

_Andy_

This thread is absolute genius

taktikback

I agree - I usually look at the pensions thread, but this has my full attention. To be honest, I took it with a pinch of salt until it was established that the OP was being totally serious in their claim that, effectively, they had failed to understand the implications of over borrowing and rolling up credit.

What concerns me more is that premiums will get built into future products to offset the losses that occur when these types of claims actually succeed. It's already happened with car insurance - I hope we are not heading down the "It's Mcdonald's fault I'm fat" route...

opinions4u

Absolutely gutted to have missed the party.

"They mis-sold me a mortgage because they didn't provide me with a supply of condoms and a user guide with my Key Facts document and I now have expensive kids".

getmore4less

How many debt are there in this DMP.

If you consolodated to the 125% together mortgage and agreed at the time you afford the payment whats changed in the mean time.

if there are other debts over and above the mortgage and the NR loan attached to the mortgage then the problem was not the mortgage but the over psending afteer you got it.

miduck

From the OP's previous thread, it seems the problem is he did not plan for when the fixed rate product ended and the APR increased. He was unable to remortgage due to being in negative equity. Hardly the fault of the advisor!