Mortgage in 2003

dunstonh

Just spoke to FOS. This is very interesting, they will take on the compliant for PPI under the terms of the mortgage code and find against the firm if 1) They said insurance was compulsary and not optional and 2) They did not disclose how much the cost of the PPI was.

The FOS telephone line is notorious for giving out incorrect information or telling you to put the complaint in. The staff manning it are not adjudicators or ombudsman and do seem to have a really poor understanding of things. You do tend to find consumers reporting similar wording which suggests some form of script style training exists. It is not a reliable source. Best source here is probably magpiecottage as he deals with complaints with intermediaries and would know. I have PM'd him to look at this thread.

As it stands, my understanding is that the FOS can only consider a case if there is sufficient evidence of a breach of the mortgage code. So, there is an element of what you say the FOS telephone line said as being correct but the reasons given are not there needs to be evidence and the two things you were told can rarely, if ever be evidenced in favour of the consumer. e.g. 1) a price statement would have been issued. Followed up by the direct debit notification stating the amount. 2) verbal allegations are unprovable. There isnt going to be documentation saying you needed it unless you actually did. If you did, then its not a mis-sale.

Brokerwise

dunstonh wrote: »

The FOS telephone line is notorious for giving out incorrect information or telling you to put the complaint in. The staff manning it are not adjudicators or ombudsman and do seem to have a really poor understanding of things. You do tend to find consumers reporting similar wording which suggests some form of script style training exists. It is not a reliable source. Best source here is probably magpiecottage as he deals with complaints with intermediaries and would know. I have PM'd him to look at this thread.

As it stands, my understanding is that the FOS can only consider a case if there is sufficient evidence of a breach of the mortgage code. So, there is an element of what you say the FOS telephone line said as being correct but the reasons given are not there needs to be evidence and the two things you were told can rarely, if ever be evidenced in favour of the consumer. e.g. 1) a price statement would have been issued. Followed up by the direct debit notification stating the amount. 2) verbal allegations are unprovable. There isnt going to be documentation saying you needed it unless you actually did. If you did, then its not a mis-sale.

Hi Dunstonh

I am a mortgage broker and believe it or not FOS will investigate a case were there is only the clients word that they were told insurance was compulsary under the Mortgage Code with no other proof whatsover. I have several 'cases' of this nature with them at the moment. I doubt very much I will be found against and the size of my company is such that I am never going to go above my free case quota but they are still recorded cases that they investigate and charged at £500 a pop which seems nuts to me

dunstonh

Brokerwise wrote: »

Hi Dunstonh

I am a mortgage broker and believe it or not FOS will investigate a case were there is only the clients word that they were told insurance was compulsary under the Mortgage Code with no other proof whatsover. I have several 'cases' of this nature with them at the moment. I doubt very much I will be found against and the size of my company is such that I am never going to go above my free case quota but they are still recorded cases that they investigate and charged at £500 a pop which seems nuts to me

Crazy I know. Hopefully yours will be the typical front line accepting the complaint but the minute the adjudicator looks at it, finds there is no evidence and rejects it.

Brokerwise

dunstonh wrote: »

Crazy I know. Hopefully yours will be the typical front line accepting the complaint but the minute the adjudicator looks at it, finds there is no evidence and rejects it.

I rang FOS up last week to discuss this in detail for a laugh as was slow after the Christmas break and the guy was all yes, even if it was 1999 and the client can not recall if the adviser was male or female but clearly 'remembers' the must have PPI bit or no mortgage bit stands and would be fully investigated :rotfl: I said to him that around the same time (1999) I think I saw the client to force entry to my property and was not sure if he was male and female and went to the police who then gave me £500 and sent the Sweeney around to look into the matter.

dunstonh

Brokerwise wrote: »

I rang FOS up last week to discuss this in detail for a laugh as was slow after the Christmas break and the guy was all yes, even if it was 1999 and the client can not recall if the adviser was male or female but clearly 'remembers' the must have PPI bit or no mortgage bit stands and would be fully investigated :rotfl: I said to him that around the same time (1999) I think I saw the client to force entry to my property and was not sure if he was male and female and went to the police who then gave me £500 and sent the Sweeney around to look into the matter.

Another adviser told me recently that he was told by the adjudicator that there was no case to answer but the client was telling him that the FOS were being positive about his complaint. The adjudicator told him they still had to go through the process and couldnt be seen to put the client off at that stage. So, on the one hand, the client was being encouraged and on the other, the adviser was being told not to worry and it would be rejected.

Brokerwise

dunstonh wrote: »

Another adviser told me recently that he was told by the adjudicator that there was no case to answer but the client was telling him that the FOS were being positive about his complaint. The adjudicator told him they still had to go through the process and couldnt be seen to put the client off at that stage. So, on the one hand, the client was being encouraged and on the other, the adviser was being told not to worry and it would be rejected.

They certainly do not help the matter that is for sure