Mis-sold Second Mortgage

SIMOED

dunstonh wrote: »

Not surprising as there is virtually no regulation in second charge secured loans (which is changing in a couple of months). Its little more than you getting what you a apply for. Nothing like the regulation required for first charge mortgages. Plus, in your case you used a broker. So, the lender only gets an application in the post and has no liability over what the broker does.



Yes. They are only becoming regulated under the same level as first charge mortgages in a few months time.



You havent said what your complaint is. It is difficult to be mis-sold something that is unregulated as there are effectively no rules to follow other than basic retail ones. However, it doesn't matter as you have no-one to complain to.
You cant complain to the firm as they no longer exist.
You cant use the FOS as the company no longer exists (and its an unregulated area so FOS would have been limited anyway)
You cant use the FSCS as its an unregulated transaction.
You cant use the courts as the company no longer exist.

Game over.

No game over,
Quote;
Plus, in your case you used a broker. So, the lender only gets an application in the post and has no liability over what the broker does.

Not necessarily, it is alleged some brokers were indeed paid to direct towards their best options which did not include the consumers best interests

dunstonh

Not necessarily, it is alleged some brokers were indeed paid to direct towards their best options which did not include the consumers best interests

Which is not a problem unless the person employed the broker to search the market. if it was commission only or the broker was a limited/tied agent of a lender then it doesnt matter. It's still game over in respect of the OP though. They clearly state the broker is no longer in business.

SIMOED

dunstonh wrote: »

Which is not a problem unless the person employed the broker to search the market. if it was commission only or the broker was a limited/tied agent of a lender then it doesnt matter. It's still game over in respect of the OP though. They clearly state the broker is no longer in business.

My point is about "undisclosed commissions" & how that may affect the consumer rights in the pricing & sale of the loan.

If there was a secret commission, then it, could indeed activate the rights under the the CCA 1974 140 unfair relationships.

dunstonh

My point is about "undisclosed commissions" & how that may affect the consumer rights in the pricing & sale of the loan.

Which only applies if the broker was working on a whole of market basis and received a commission which was not disclosed and a fee. In those cases, the commission should be rebated. The well known court case that went on for many years resulted in a few hundred pounds being paid out in the end by the broker.

However, the OP's broker is no longer trading.

A more recent court case, Plevin, has led to refunds being required if the commission is over 50%. The excess over 50% needs to be refunded and an interest adjustment made. This has yet to come into force but that is the FCA proposal which should come in soon. The lender is responsible on this one.

SIMOED

Melbourne vs Berry is a case that explains what I am posting about, nothing to do with PPI;

http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Judicial%20Decisions/PublishedByYear/Documents/2013/[2013]%20NIMaster%203/j_j_2013NIMaster3Final.htm

spudafett

ViolaLass wrote: »

Again, were they advising you on what to do with your debts or on how to get a second mortgage? If they weren't debt advisors then you really can't complain about them suggesting a second mortgage as you should have done your research elsewhere first.

Sorry for the delay I've just had acute tonsillitis and was a bit ill. I honestly can't remember if they were advising me on my debt solution or how to get a second mortgage. I do remember I was looking in to how to reduce my monthly outgoings and the various options available to me, but what hey actually said a decade ago I can't honestly remember. The telephone calls i have on tape only start with FirstPlus.

spudafett

SIMOED wrote: »

Perhaps you need to consider what is wrong now & not so much what was or has been.

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?64054-Firstplus-Requirements-%96-OFT-FOI-Release&highlight=firstplus+disclosure

Thanks for this SIMOED. Sorry I've been ill with acute tonsillitis. Do I need to see if I can get information pertaining to the commission FirstPlus paid the broker? Can I contest the interest rate on the loan? I need to have a further research in to this. Cheers

SIMOED

spudafett wrote: »

Thanks for this SIMOED. Sorry I've been ill with acute tonsillitis. Do I need to see if I can get information pertaining to the commission FirstPlus paid the broker? Can I contest the interest rate on the loan? I need to have a further research in to this. Cheers

I doubt FP will even entertain any such disclosure, in fact, they do not even have to tell the Financial Ombudsman. It has got to be worth a crack though.

Not only this but did you have any interest rate increases applied to your loan, most of FP customers have "never" had any decrease to date & remain paying rates at their peak, before the "big drop"

spudafett

SIMOED wrote: »

I doubt FP will even entertain any such disclosure, in fact, they do not even have to tell the Financial Ombudsman. It has got to be worth a crack though.

Not only this but did you have any interest rate increases applied to your loan, most of FP customers have "never" had any decrease to date & remain paying rates at their peak, before the "big drop"

Shy bairns get nowt, as they say. I've had a few interest rate rises (1 reduction many years ago!) But, since the "big drop" I have seen nothing still in double figures :mad:

SIMOED

spudafett wrote: »

Shy bairns get nowt, as they say. I've had a few interest rate rises (1 reduction many years ago!) But, since the "big drop" I have seen nothing still in double figures :mad:

Ok, there is scope with the rates perhaps more so than the alleged commission.

Please read the disclosure from the link I have given you, it is about the OFT & the discussions leading up to FP being reprimanded in 2010.

I am sure you may have questions following your observations & it gives an idea where the "strength of contention/s" may lie.

Enjoy