Mis sold Mortgage

AllyMac

But surely you DID understand what you were signing up to - because you told the advisor that you had no payment vehicle in place for when the mortgage ended in 5 years time.

So you were aware that an interest only mortgage wasn't going to pay off the capital and you were aware that it would end in 5 years.

£550 a month may have been less than renting (can't imagine it would have been much more, in any area). You had the possibility of house value increase - as it happens, that didn't happen for you - but it was definitely a possibility over 5 years. For a young person who may not have been quite able to afford repayment, and certainly couldn't afford a repayment vehicle, this sounds like a valid choice.

There must have been a reason why you decided to choose this product in the first place - what was that?

I do think the branch should have explained the proper complaints procedure to you though.

minimike2

ACG wrote: »

A lot of the time I read "miss sold mortgage" on here my eyes roll to the back of my head.

However, having read yours I am wondering why/how you managed to get a 3 year fixed rate on a 5 year mortgage at the age of 23.

Snap.

I opened the thread expecting to reply "that is not mis-sold" but I am indeed baffled at how a 5 year term could have been recommended.

The thing is OP that as you managed to get a new mortgage in place then you haven't actually suffered any financial loss, so some kind of payment for distress is about as much as you can expect, but given that it would appear this all happened more than 2 years ago, you might find that difficult too.

JimmyTheWig

daveyb16 wrote: »

I was a completely unsavvy 23year old.

I agree with what others have said about how this isn't an excuse and isn't the bank's fault, but I still fail to see how the product you were sold was suitable for your needs, however unsavvy you were.

I would proceed with the thinking that you were mis-sold.
So if you had lost anything then you may get that back.
Note that this doesn't give you anything for "what might have been". It doesn't punish the bank for having done a bad job.

after the fixed three year period there were two years left. before the bank would ask for all the money back. Yes I could have switched to another product (which I did by moving to HSBC after the 3year fixed term) but had I not had 5K to stump up for the shortfall in repayments that had not gone on the house then I would have lost the house.

There are all sorts of things that could have gone wrong.
But it sounds to me like you haven't lost anything.
Which means that even if you win the argument that you were missold, you won't get anything back from it.

dunstonh

I am in no way associated with this mortgage or bank anymore.

In which case, there is no issue. You moved the mortgage before it came an issue but the monthly costs and deal costs were identical whether it was 5 years or 25 years. So, you are not out of pocket.

in hindsight, I wanted a traditional mortgage E.g repayment which after the offer rate switches to a bank rate until the mortgage is paid off. At the time I did not know this. I was a completely unsavvy 23year old.

Yet old enough to have children, drive a car, vote, work etc. At 23 you cannot put the blame on others that you did not read a very simple contract/offer letter. The changes to mortgage disclosure was one of the few decent things the FCA have done.

Surely that is not adequate justification for irresponsible lending of the product.

Doesnt matter. That ship has sailed and you left it without being out of pocket.

This one is for you to put down to experience.

daveyb16

Thanks for your replies everyone. I had an idea that the conclusion would be "you should have known better" and whilst I agree with this to an extent and accept there is probably no financial recompense to be sought I do not fully accept this.


Dunstonh -In a world where car owning child bearing adults are constantly sucked into endlessly poor financial deals, irresponsible lending is possible. if everyone should know better then why does some seriously poor lending exist? If you apply the "should know better" idea to other things like PPI then people should have known they didn't need it. Billions later it seems people are easily caught out like I was. Letters which may seem simple to one person are not to another.

My circumstances were clear and what some don't seem to understand is my knowledge of mortgages was skewed more than it is now. Don't forget this product was recommended to me. However when I think about my biggest loss here was having to stump up the cash to fill the void then its fair enough as I probably would have paid a similar amount on a repayment mortgage.

Thanks again for your comments. I think I was hoping someone had a similar story with a great outcome. But hey ho we live and learn!!

muhandis

Your example is a clear case of irresponsible lending mis-sold under the guise of "financial advice" by a clearly incompetent and/or ethically challenged advisor who only had eyes for his fee. Irrespective of whether there is any chance of compensation or not, that fact doesn't change and you are absolutely right to feel aggrieved at the way you were treated as a consumer.

Fortunately, your particular case had a happy ending, however it isn't too far fetched to imagine that there might be others who were similarly mis-sold this product who ended up in a financial mess.

Thanks for sharing your story.

daveyb16 wrote: »

Thanks for your replies everyone. I had an idea that the conclusion would be "you should have known better" and whilst I agree with this to an extent and accept there is probably no financial recompense to be sought I do not fully accept this.

Dunstonh -In a world where car owning child bearing adults are constantly sucked into endlessly poor financial deals, irresponsible lending is possible. if everyone should know better then why does some seriously poor lending exist? If you apply the "should know better" idea to other things like PPI then people should have known they didn't need it. Billions later it seems people are easily caught out like I was. Letters which may seem simple to one person are not to another.

My circumstances were clear and what some don't seem to understand is my knowledge of mortgages was skewed more than it is now. Don't forget this product was recommended to me. However when I think about my biggest loss here was having to stump up the cash to fill the void then its fair enough as I probably would have paid a similar amount on a repayment mortgage.

Thanks again for your comments. I think I was hoping someone had a similar story with a great outcome. But hey ho we live and learn!!

daveyb16

I never said my generation. I said adults. Therefore that does not preclude only my age group. People make bad decisions at all ages as I’m sure you are aware. Also how on earth have we been so pampered? if you’re talking due to financial access then surely these revenue streams are available to ALL not just my generation? If you’re talking about work, well I’m afraid you are flat out wrong. As an engineer I had to fight to gain an apprenticeship, and stay in work in my twenties through ten years of recession and little recovery the likes of which not seen in 70 years when peers with many years of experience were already established in roles or had more experience for the few new roles created. I know this period has been tough and unlike you I acknowledge all age groups have struggled. No one has been pampered. Please give examples of the pampering? Nor IN GENERAL does anyone in my generation qualify for things such as the original right to buy scheme on which many people have enjoyed. Nor did my generation have the opportunity to purchase a property in the late 90's which then suddenly shot up in value meaning fat equities in the property.


You don't even seem to acknowledge irresponsible lending of mortgages exist and seem to take issue with this being muted. Yet this very thing was the catalyst for the aforementioned recession.



To be clear I am not using age as an excuse. I shall reiterate I acknowledge my errors but that was to try and offer some explanation why I stupidly signed up for it. I was a bit green! My argument/question was should there be recompense for the fact it was offered AND recommended, by the close friend of the person I was buying from. You seemed to have missed that caveat. Poor lending is not solely at the feet of the person who receives the loan. That model of thinking absolves lenders from any responsibility. Why bother with regulations?

lippy1923

So to sum up - You appear to have been sold a crap product that didn't suit your needs. You saw this and changed to another lender with a hopefully more suitable product. You have not lost anything. You are now happy with what you have.
You have told the previous lender you are unhappy but now you have moved on and not actually lost anything what do you want them to do? A hand written apology? Compensation? Tell us what you want so people can comment something useful to you.


You made a mistake and the previous lender made a mistake. Luckily you are not out of pocket, so I would take the lesson and move on


Edit- Just seen you are asking if there should be recompense for the fact is was offered and recommended by a friend of the seller. Sorry, I don't think so as you could have gone anywhere. You chose to use that lender. I do think they should have handled your complaint better though.

dunstonh

Dunston h - I don't fully understand why you are being so rude to me about this query. Especially as I have already fully acknowledged my errors.

Not rude. I was just taking issue with you using your age of 23 as an excuse.

Your comment on my generation being pampered is completely laughable and shows you are possibly out of touch.

Perhaps if you had experienced things before, you would realise how much consumer protection and nanny state there is nowadays.

As an engineer I had to fight to gain an apprenticeship, and stay in work in my twenties through ten years of recession and little recovery the likes of which not seen in 70 years when peers with many years of experience were already established in roles or had more experience for the few new roles created.

Which is great for you. However, you call it 10 years of bad times. You should try looking at the 70s, 80s and early 90s for a comparison of working standards, living standards and consumer protection.

You don't even seem to acknowledge irresponsible lending of mortgages exist and seem to take issue with this being muted. Yet this very thing was the catalyst for the aforementioned recession.

I do and I have. Also, that irresponsible lending came with irresponsible borrowing. People got what they asked for. It takes two to tango. This is in part why you see so few successful complaints going through about irresponsible lending. The other reason being that even with irresponsible lending and borrowing, the majority of those are still better off than they would have been had they rented.

As I said, you are taking my comments out of the intended context. Reading text can sometimes do that. I was only taking issue with you using age for an excuse.

muhandis

Of course. Because a getting payday loan to buy a pair of shoes is the same as taking out a mortgage based on regulated financial advice to buy a house. :rotfl:

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.:money: