Carrington Carr Miss-sold Mortgage

magpiecottage

dunstonh wrote: »

Yet every consumer group, regulator and ombudsman says its better to complain yourself and not use a CMC. Indeed, using a CMC can actually harm your complaint if they use a standard template letter.

A joint note issued by the CMCs' regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority, the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme is available for download here.

This says, amongst other things,

• There is no need to use a CMC to reclaim mis-sold PPI. It is straightforward to complain to financial firms directly, and if necessary to the ombudsman service or FSCS, without using a CMC. Complaining yourself is free, and you will keep any compensation you receive without any fees being deducted.
  
• Your complaint won’t be decided any differently by either the ombudsman service or FSCS if it reaches them. Under FCA rules financial firms should investigate your complaint fully, whether or not a CMC is involved. The CMC cannot increase your compensation or speed up how quickly your complaint will be looked at by the ombudsman service or FSCS.
• Consider carefully if you are prepared to give up part of your potential compensation to have their help, when you could easily complain directly yourself
  
  

bowman19

I have recently had a similar letter off a solicitor about a commercial mortgage I appears that there was a hefty broker fee which I was not told about by either the broker or the bank providing the mortgage (Commercial First). I have been told that is should have been disclosed to enable me to make an informed decision. As it stands, it looks like the broker went to the highest bidder (described as possible bribery by the bank), which was possibly not in my best interest, but in the interest of the other parties.
Some cases have already been to court and won. I've already instructed on a 'no win, no fee' basis but it's a 60/40 split (in my favour). If I get anything back it will be better than nothing. I've checked the solicitor firm out and they seem perfectly legit.

dunstonh

I have recently had a similar letter off a solicitor about a commercial mortgage I appears that there was a hefty broker fee which I was not told about by either the broker or the bank providing the mortgage (Commercial First).

There was a successful court case a few years back that ruled that where there was a fee and a commission (not either/or) then the commission should have been disclosed (not the fee). In that case, the court ruled the commission should be refunded. It was about £200 odd.

When you say "hefty fee" do you mean fee or do you mean commission? Was it fee AND commission in your case?

As it stands, it looks like the broker went to the highest bidder (described as possible bribery by the bank), which was possibly not in my best interest, but in the interest of the other parties.

The fee would be the same irrespective of lender. It is if there was a commission instead and a fee.

I've already instructed on a 'no win, no fee' basis but it's a 60/40 split (in my favour).

Vat is also chargeable so dont forget 20% there too.