misold mortgages

nanny1111

I would like martin to tell me about the hundreds of mortgages that were and still are missold before the cut off date 28 august 1988 ,mine was sold to me 15 dec 1987 only 4 months before is there nothing we can do.

Mr_helpful

In what way was it mis sold

dunstonh

You will get a bit more of this when repossessions go up. Anyone who gets repossessed or gets into real problems will look to blame others for their problems. Thats the way of the UK "blame someone else" compensation culture.

petermb_2

Surely this site was created to help the consumer fight back against the powers that be and their agents.

If you get repossessed because you havent paid your way then you have to take responsibility for your actions. So too must the lender and they must also have got their side of the agreement right or ultimately they may lose the right to repossess.

This applies to previously repossessed homes too.

In the coming months many of these sad events will be revisited and they are sad events.

Jonbvn

I am guessing that the OP is referring to endowment mortgages, given the cut-off date mentioned.

dunstonh

Good spot Jon. That date is consistent with the FSCS introduction.

In which case, you cannot hold people responsible for things that took place pre-regulation.

Rules and laws change and you can only comply with the ones that are in place at the time.

EdInvestor

nanny1111 wrote: »

I would like martin to tell me about the hundreds of mortgages that were and still are missold before the cut off date 28 august 1988 ,mine was sold to me 15 dec 1987 only 4 months before is there nothing we can do.

It depends.Who sold it to you?

If it was an IFA you've got no hope, they refuse to even look at complaints no matter how justified..

But if it was a bank or building society they will usually pay redress for justified complaints even though the sale was pre regulation. It falls under the "duty of care" requirement.

dunstonh

If it was an IFA you've got no hope, they refuse to even look at complaints no matter how justified..

And rightfully so and lets be honest, with hindsight, dont you think most of the tied insurance companies had wished they had done the same?

You dont find the police going back to people who drove their cars at 100mph in the 60s when there was no speed limit. Retrospectively applying rule changes back two decades is not sensible in any walk of life.

EdInvestor

dunstonh wrote: »

.. with hindsight, dont you think most of the tied insurance companies had wished they had done the same?

Occasionally they make an effort to treat customers fairly.I don't think we should criticise them when they do.

Mr_helpful

The Op said Mortgages not endowments Before we have the usual petty squabble I think we should let the OP explain what was meant by mortgages. was it endowments or not? plus why does the OP think it was mis sold in the first place.

nanny1111

EdInvestor wrote: »

It depends.Who sold it to you?

If it was an IFA you've got no hope, they refuse to even look at complaints no matter how justified..

But if it was a bank or building society they will usually pay redress for justified complaints even though the sale was pre regulation. It falls under the "duty of care" requirement.

it was an ifa who told us we would get more than enough money to pay of endownment and probably double it .