Financial Advisor fined £135,000 for mis-selling!

chris_m

jimjames wrote: »

Wish I had taken it now when I see what others are getting paid

But surely all they are getting is a sum of money to put them back in the same position as if the PPI had never been taken?
You and I have had the benefit of the money that we didn't spend on PPI, whereas others are just getting back what they shouldn't have spent - little different to a savings plan I guess?

masonic

chris_m wrote: »

But surely all they are getting is a sum of money to put them back in the same position as if the PPI had never been taken?
You and I have had the benefit of the money that we didn't spend on PPI, whereas others are just getting back what they shouldn't have spent - little different to a savings plan I guess?

You'll get the sum of money taken plus 8% interest. You'd struggle to make that as a risk free return elsewhere - it's rather like a very long term regular savings account.

Pincher

masonic wrote: »

You'll get the sum of money taken plus 8% interest. You'd struggle to make that as a risk free return elsewhere - it's rather like a very long term regular savings account.

If the FCA makes the lenders pay compensation for people who got Sub-Prime mortgages, that would be spectacular. Compensation for

1. got repossessed,
2. my wife divorced me (or vice versa),
3. high interest,
4. forced to buy house insurance at higher premium,

etc.

Assuming the lender had commercial liability insurance, so they can't just shut up shop and run, and the risk was underwritten across Swiss RE:, AIG, Lloyds, etc. , we could be talking too big to fail number two.

In a sense, assuming Subprime borrowers are poor, this is a re-distribution of wealth some people will consider right.

dunstonh

If the FCA makes the lenders pay compensation for people who got Sub-Prime mortgages, that would be spectacular.

It wont be the lenders that foot the bill. Plus, its a very small window. Lenders can only offer what they offer. None of the high street banks were sub-prime or had a sub-prime offering. You had to use a broker to get sub-prime or go direct. Those that went direct cant complain about bad advice.

Mortgages were not regulated until October 2004. So, it would only be on mortgages after that date. Sub prime almost died in 2008 (some have returned but not many). So, its about a 4 year window.

For it to be classed as a mis-sale, the person would have to have been able to get a prime or near prime mortgage at point of sale. So, the justification would be reviewed and found to be insufficient it would be the broker (or their insurance) that pays the bill.

The FOS have indicated that they have seen a small number of cases but the FOS decisions only had 2 upheld and 4 rejected when searching for the word subprime. Most of those are complaints that are not about this point but happen to be subprime mortgages.