Mis Sold/ Advised Mortgage

kingstreet

I'd have wanted an email from our BDM before I placed any reliance on what Halifax said on this issue.

You can make three calls to a lender to ask the same question and get three different answers...

Senior_Paper_Monitor

I agree fully with Kingstreet (and AGC) - the error of the broker is in failing to tie down Halifax on the rules.

I am still wavering on what part of the costs incurred will be awarded.

holly_hobby

I can only echo whats been said by the guys here re always ensuring that anything off piste thats not coming from the BDM or UW directly, you have written in blood, in triple, from the lender ... but thats just experience, and I doubt your broker will make the same mistake of just taking a call bod's word again.

However, we need to deal with where we are now.

In respect of a complaint, you need to demonstrate that the advice of the broker prevented you from making a balanced and informed decision as to the validity of moving lender (to obtain a lower payrate), or staying with Halifax (with although a higher payrate, the saving of the ERC making this the most cost effective choice for you).

Now, as it is, someone was given duff info - there are lenders that even upto 6 mths on a staggered sale and purchase, agree to reimburse partially or wholly any ERCs, but the terms and options for this vary between lenders - and by no means is an obligatory right of the mortgagor. (given that the ERC is a penalty for withdrawing early from the contractal agreement entered into for the product).

In this case, you elected, based solely on the brokers advice (they state they recd recd from Halifax), that if you submitted a new application within 3 mths of exit, your ERC would be fully refunded, and completion within that time wasn't obligatory to qualify for this concession.

You agreed and acted on this info, but later when you did complete os of the 3 mth period, Halifax claim the ERC refund was only on completion within that period - so somewhere along the lines between them and the broker, someone got it wrong (and I in my opinion this would have originated from Halifax, but thats for the broker to take up with their BDM, and whom she should be hounding and jumping up and down on, in respect of sorting this !).

On the face of it compensastion is due, which is essentially putting you back in the position you would have been, had the duff info not been acted upon.

So, I agree with SPM, this most obvious disadvantaage would be the payrate saving of £1500, you say you would have gained with Nwide if you had gone there as you originally intended.

However, and I'm playing devils advocate here, any defence to this may be, that if you didn't already have a DIP (ie prelimarly agreement to lend) with Nwide at the time you applied to Halifax, it is pure specualtion that you would have actually passed their status/uw checks, to enable you to secure a mortgage and this lower payrate with them.

So just be prepared that this may be raised by either/or the firm or FOS (if you refer for adjuication).

But yes, my view the £1500 is currently the measured loss here (if we're comparing fixed rates, if they're discount or trackers, then its a little more difficult to try and crystallise what the projected loss over the product term would be). I believe the £1500 is the pivotal sum, as if you had both pursued and been successful with a Nwide mge (as you intended, but for the advisers guidance), this is the actual monetary loss you will have incurred as a result of relying upon the inaccurate advice.

I would in the first place complain to the broker (copy and include all corresondence from them. supporting what they told you re the ERC and solely which you based your decision to remain with Halifax on), and let them liaise with Halifax and their BDM, as if you go direct to Halifax you're effectively cutting the broker out the picture, unlikely to get anywhere and nicely absolving the broker from their role and responsibility in this mess.

Once you've had a final response to your complaint, which as noted above will probably be via their HO, and if you're unhappy with their findings, then you take it to FOS for arbitration.

Of course at any point come back here for further comment and guidance, we're here to help when and where we can.

Hope this is helps

Holly xx

DIYnovise

thanks so much everyone for your advise. It is a difficult situation as i have great relationship with my broker and I trust her when she says she was mis informed on the phone by the Halifax. Should have had it in writing tho!. I'll initially contact her tentatively with the advise above and see what she says.

holly_hobby

Yep, she's probably telling the truth (and I speak from experience of especially Halifax, but others too, which is why I always referred directly to BDMs), BUT essentially thats between her and Halifax and for HER to take up with them directly - not you.

You acted on advice given directly by her to you, she's the adviser, and thats just the way the cookie crumbles .... there's no room really for sentiment in business, as she has shown in not taking responsibility, and referring you to anyone else but her to have sorted.

Keep any complaint letter polite, factual, relevant and concise with supporting evidence ... here if you need help.

Hope this helps ...

Holly x

ACG

One other thing to note, you should have been given a Suitability letter - this explains why the lender/product was chosen over any others. It would be interesting to check to see if that mentions anything about the ERCs.

You might have a great relationship with your broker but for them to effectively wipe their hands when you most need them to rectify a problem that has arisen based on what they have told you doesnt scream great relationship to me.

holly_hobby

Excellent point ACG - the suitability letter should of course accurately detail the basis of both product and lender selection.

If there's no mention of the ERC influcencing the decison - then she's in a further bit of doo ....

Interesting to see how this will pan out ...

H x

Let_Us_See

holly_hobby wrote: »

.... there's no room really for sentiment in business

Shame, it is just reflective of our blame culture which makes no allowances for genuine mistakes.

Getting any lender to confirm a phone conversation is difficult and thererfore you need to study both the KFI and Suitability Letter to confirm details of the mortgage and why your adviser recommended it.

opinions4u

Let_Us_See wrote: »

Shame, it is just reflective of our blame culture which makes no allowances for genuine mistakes.

I'd lose sentiment for a £3k mess not of my own making.

ACG

Why should the OP be out of pocket be out of pocket through no fault of his/her own? They havnt mentioned compensation just to be put back where they would have been had the advisor/halifax both done as agreed.

I hate compensation culture as much as anyone but when there is a genuine mistakte it should be rectified. I messed up on an affordability calcualtor for one of my clients. We had a val instructed, i just refunded it the day i realised the mistake as it was my fault - my boss called me a tool and it was an expensive lesson but one i learned from.