Paragon Mortgage 1996

Gazzaboy1

We had a Mortgage with Paragon Mortgages ( Solihull UK) From about 1996 to early 2000 . PPI was compulsory but you had the option to get it else where apparently.

10 years ago circa 2006 I complained about miss selling . They are not regulated by any Ombudsman so eventually I took them to small claims court and lost! I cant recall exactly why I lost but fairly sure it was partly down to them employing a very young and fresh out of Law school solicitor and the female judge feeling sorry for her! I may have been a little over zealous in my self representation which probably did not help ( I was not rude (I hope))
Recently I have asked for a the court judgement but it has been destroyed.
I know I was miss sold, as I had done some Financial Advising years ago, I had no choice ie Mortgage with PPI or no Mortgage at that time there were only 2 or 3 lenders in the market.

I have complained again recently and after a few exchanges been told – no hope of any recompense! The last letter acknowledges that PPI was compulsory but states that I was at liberty to buy it elsewhere! There was next to no market for the product at that time but that would be hard to substantiate?!

I am wondering if any one else has similar experience or if its worth going to court again or using one of the many companies that claim they can help! The claim last time ( 10 years ago) was circa £5k so with interest now could be a lot more!

antrobus

Gazzaboy1 wrote: »

....The claim last time ( 10 years ago) was circa £5k so with interest now could be a lot more!

At the very least I believe that your claim is now statute barred.

dunstonh

Paragon were also a broker provider and only do buy to let mortgages (although not sure when that changed). Brokers were not regulated in any form in 1996 and buy to let mortgages are unregulated.

10 years ago circa 2006 I complained about miss selling . They are not regulated by any Ombudsman so eventually I took them to small claims court and lost!

An outcome that was always likely given the fact they were unregulated.

I cant recall exactly why I lost but fairly sure it was partly down to them employing a very young and fresh out of Law school solicitor and the female judge feeling sorry for her! I may have been a little over zealous in my self representation which probably did not help ( I was not rude (I hope))

Probably more down to the fact that it was an unregulated mortgage and its difficult to claim mis-sale when they have little more requirement other than to provide as per the terms of contract.

I know I was miss sold, as I had done some Financial Advising years ago, I had no choice ie Mortgage with PPI or no Mortgage at that time there were only 2 or 3 lenders in the market.

You would also know then that it was unregulated and many mortgages had PPi as a condition in the mid 90s and that doing so was allowed. Where it was a condition, the FOS reject the complaints.

I have complained again recently and after a few exchanges been told – no hope of any recompense! The last letter acknowledges that PPI was compulsory but states that I was at liberty to buy it elsewhere! There was next to no market for the product at that time but that would be hard to substantiate?!

Of course you have been rejected.
1 - it was pre-regulation
2 - there were plenty of products on the market.
3 - it was a condition of borrowing. So, not mis-sold

I am wondering if any one else has similar experience or if its worth going to court again or using one of the many companies that claim they can help! The claim last time ( 10 years ago) was circa £5k so with interest now could be a lot more!

Flogging a dead horse here. You have no complaint to make.
They could easily have refused to engage with you as you already complained. They could also easily time bar you in respect of court action.

DevCoder

And that's ignoring all the other issues with your complaint (compulsory MPPI was ok, other lenders were there and you could obtain the MPPI from someone else, pre regulatory, as a IFA (although the fact you are mentioning claims companies I would worry about this claim!) you would be expected to have an understanding of the products involved, your ability to prove that this was you only choice (even though it wasn't)).

I'd move on...

DevCoder

Or what dunstonh says

magpiecottage

For somebody who worked as a financial adviser, the OP seems remarkably ignorant of the issues here.

As others have pointed out, no jurisdiction for FOS. The product was suitable. It would have been a broker not the lender that was responsible. The policy was compulsory, there was no obligation to point out that alternatives were available. The sale took place more than six years ago and the OP knew about it more than three years ago so a timebar under section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980 can be applied. The events were more than fifteen years ago so the matter can be timebar under section 14B of the same Act is available.

Finally, a court has already ruled on it. And if the OP thinks this was because the court felt sorry for their solicitor, they are in cloud cuckoo land. The reason they used one that was wet behind the ears is more likely to have been because the OP's case was so weak that there was no point in sending anybody else.

It is now even weaker and if the OP tries to go to court again, they can expect to have it thrown out again - except this time a court may conclude they are being unreasonable in trying again and award costs against him/her.