Mis-selling of mortgage?

Thrugelmir

gw23 wrote: »

She did buy a flat - that was all she could afford. She rejected renting because when she was told she only need to pay the mortgage and forget the insurance, it was cheaper than renting anything at least half decent. It would have meant a grotty bedsit and even so, the flat she bought needed updating.

The choice was her's. The mortgage broker merely found a product for her requirements.

The annual mortgage statements clearly show the debt owed. So pleading ignorance simply doesn't wash.

haras_nosirrah

As others have said what would her alternative have been at the time. I suspect if the broker had refused to do the mortgage she would have asked another till she found one who would

What does she want to achieve? If she thinks the lender is going to write off the debt I think she is going to be very disappointed. Lender may agree to extend the term on a repayment basis but if she can't afford to repay the loan then the time may have come to sell and go into rented

magpiecottage

The first sale predates regulation and therefore, with no broker to complain to and no FSCS protection, is at an end.

As far as the second sale is concerned, it simply replaced one interest only mortgage with another and left her no worse off.

Since October 2004, lenders have been required to warn interest only borrowers that they need a repayment vehicle at least annually, using text specified by the regulator. So as it is more than six years since the advice was given and there have been regular warnings dating back more than three years any complaint can be timebarred.

That said, there may be options and a lender will normally be reluctant to take possession of a property provided the interest is paid.