Sesame Mortgage PPI - Refusal to reopen

magpiecottage

For such a complaint, you MIGHT have a valid complaint under the Mortgage Code because DBS, one of Sesame's predecessors subscribe to it.

However, if the broker was trading under the DBS subscription to the mortgage code and it is more than six months since Sesame rejected the complaint you would seem to be too late.

If the broker traded under his firm's own subscription to the Mortgage Code then, unless it subsequently became directly regulated by the Financial Services Authority, FOS will have no jurisdiction.

dunstonh

Why did Sesame reject it? If the agency was taken over by a member firm that belonged to Sesame, then it doesnt mean Sesame "inherit" the liability for the original sale. Only if the original seller was part of Sesame at the time would Sesame have a potential liability (and Sesame didnt exist in 2002 - So it would have been one of the networks that made up Sesame)

magpiecottage

As I recall, having done some work for Sesame, only one of its various predecessors, DBS Network, subscribed to the Mortgage Code. This means that, if the original advice was a member of DBS at the time, Sesame ought to consider the complaint - although it is possible that the member suscribed to the Mortgage Code in their own right and therefore the member would be answerable themselves.

The other networks did not subscribe as far as I am aware. This would have meant that from summer 1999 to autumn 2004 the member had their own subscription to the Mortgage Code (lenders would not accept mortgage applications from non-subscribers).

However, when mortgages and general insurance became regulated and under the compulsory jurisdiction of FOS, it was only allowed to consider complaints under the Mortgage Code against businesses that were already under its jurisdiction at the time of a complaint.

Being a member of a network does not put an adviser under FOS jurisdiction - it is the network that is under its jurisdiction.

Therefore, therefore, I think it is probable that FOS has no jurisdiction over this matter - either because it never did or because the OP has waited too long to ask it to intervene.