Please help! I'm drowning in differing information

earthan7dor1

I'd really appreciate sane answers; that I don't end up in the arms of a 'claims company'. I've already been shaken down by someone (ostensibly) "acting in my best interests", thank you - They also took my health, nearly tipping me over the edge. I'm still fragile.

Thus, I hadn't bothered jumping on this bandwagon, as I didn't think it applied to me. Especially as 'Plevin' was 2014. I had been horribly mis-sold prior to her..

Then I read 'mis-selling was "primarily in the 1990s". I can vouch it was earlier! Also, other dates were being bandied about - "PPI began in 70s"; "banks got hold of it in 80s", and even "we can help you claim successfully if within the last 30 years"!. Then the glass half-empty brigade lob- in with, eg, "not regulated ... you're on a no starter there".

Although the issue still gives me panic attacks, my stubborn streak kicked in after I read (FCA) rights of victims: "you are a victim in an FCA case if you have suffered economic loss as a result of the activities of an individual (or company) ... and then FCA get negative ... "who we are investigating or prosecuting". But WHY should it be narrowly selective, by a tight period proviso. I defy another mis-sold to match my holocaust. And as Dan Hale (Money Mail ) said "your right to justice shouldn't fade with time". "INJUSTICE ANYWHERE, IS A THREAT TO JUSTICE EVERYWHERE" - Martin Luther King.

Who has the autocracy to decree those who avidly attempted trying to engage authority when the balloon first went up, yet were savagely ignored at that time by lily-livered ostriches and felon cohorts, are today being 'fobbed off' again.

Yet, if collectively we are taken on board and the mis-selling slurry was drained once and for all - a fresh page?

All the financial miscreants should hang their heads in shame, put their hands in their pockets and reinstate naive, innocent victims (eg, moi!). After all, it was OUR hard earned money they willfully pilfered (and how many of those not strong enough to sustain the fight for their rights?).

In very short, I was then a younger, single woman, no next of kin/dependants; seen as no one to fight for her and therefore an "easy killing". But in my six year fight, I didn't make the "killing" easy, yet they did manage to scrape out my insides, leaving just a shell of the person I once was.

I actually had enough equity to buy the property outright (and get a DSS home improvement loan) but was pushed to take out a Mortgage. Thinking it would be a repayment like I already had experienced (15 years), I much later learned I had been stitched into an endowment with insurance. And even later learned it was a 'low start' - the highest commission earner. I was refused MIRAS; charged 15.9% interest, capitalised/rolled up; refused a reference letter to go to another lender, once glaring hindsight had kicked in! There is so much more including a later scam - a Lloyds' loan.

However, having retrieved my box of papers, and now surrounded by the sickly 'proof'' - even the Sun's press cuttings. Have I/will I waste my time sorting through everything here, just to be 11th hour thwarted trying to file a claim when, despite right is on my side, I don't tick the FCAs stringent 2014 tick-box?

Is ANYONE out there who can tangibly help/advise me. Please?:mad::mad::mad:

[Deleted User]

Could you summarise your question?

dunstonh

! Also, other dates were being bandied about - "PPI began in 70s"; "banks got hold of it in 80s", and even "we can help you claim successfully if within the last 30 years"!. Then the glass half-empty brigade lob- in with, eg, "not regulated ... you're on a no starter there".

PPi is an early 80s invention but didnt go mainstream until late 80s and went into overdrive in the very early 90s. It also needs to be noted that not all PPI is bad. You can still buy the good types of PPI today.

Then the glass half-empty brigade lob- in with, eg, "not regulated ... you're on a no starter there".

Reguation is an issue if you bought it from a distribution that was not regulated at the time.

None of these things have to do with glass half full/empty but are positions of fact.

I actually had enough equity to buy the property outright (and get a DSS home improvement loan) but was pushed to take out a Mortgage. Thinking it would be a repayment like I already had experienced (15 years), I much later learned I had been stitched into an endowment with insurance.

It is very hard to find yourself in that position accidentally. Endowments had to have life assurance to enable them to qualify under the life assurance tax wrapper. If this we mid 90s or earlier, you would still need life assuance on a repayment mortgage as banks had it as mandatory in those days.

And even later learned it was a 'low start' - the highest commission earner.

Actually, it was a lower commission earner.

Is ANYONE out there who can tangibly help/advise me.

Probably is. However, you will need to tell us what your problem is.

antrobus

earthan7dor1 wrote: »

...I actually had enough equity to buy the property outright (and get a DSS home improvement loan) but was pushed to take out a Mortgage. Thinking it would be a repayment like I already had experienced (15 years), I much later learned I had been stitched into an endowment with insurance. And even later learned it was a 'low start' - the highest commission earner. I was refused MIRAS; charged 15.9% interest, capitalised/rolled up; refused a reference letter to go to another lender, once glaring hindsight had kicked in! ...

Dates would help. It's also not clear what your complaint is.

The fact that you had an endowment rather than a repayment mortgage?
The fact that the interest was being rolled up?

Clarity would help as well.

earthan7dor1

Apologies for being vague, its my in-borne reluctance to face this problem!

In short, in 1987 I was sold an NHL mortgage. Apparently, NHL has always been Paragon. But someone in forums said Paragon will refute liability.

I signed papers to leave with the Broker while I sought property. Yes, I know all about the wisdom of hindsight! But I had let my sale go through, despite my vendor pulled out. Thus I needed to have a suitable property in the time-scale my "proceeds of sale" remained as such, and not assumed being 'savings' - albeit DSS had done that anyway.

I did not get any paperwork till after moving in. The Broker had locked me into an endowment - later learned 'low start'. And LAS insurance In time I learned my single status didn't warrant either. Also, recent research learned LAS as was, ceased 1993 - a memorable year for me!

Only a claims-chaser company has mentioned NHL and tha year being eligible.- surprise! I'm too old to go through the shredder a second time.


Thereby, if FCA coldly vetoes my (wholly justified) claim solely because it's "out of time/favour", I needn't now put myself through purgatory to submit my appeal.

earthan7dor1

Apologies for being vague, its my in-borne reluctance to face this problem!

In short, in 1987 I was sold an NHL mortgage. Apparently, NHL has always been Paragon. But someone in forums said Paragon will refute liability.

I signed papers to leave with the Broker while I sought property. Yes, I know all about the wisdom of hindsight! But I had let my sale go through, despite my vendor pulled out. Thus I needed to have a suitable property in the time-scale my "proceeds of sale" remained as such, and not assumed being 'savings' - albeit DSS had done that anyway.

I did not get any paperwork till after moving in. The Broker had locked me into an endowment - later learned 'low start'. And LAS insurance. In time I learned my single status didn't warrant either. Also, recent research learned LAS as was, ceased 1993 - a memorable year for me!

Only a claims-chaser company has mentioned NHL and tha year being eligible.- surprise! I'm too old to go through the shredder a second time.


Thereby, if FCA coldly vetoes my (wholly justified) claim solely because it's "out of time/favour", I needn't now put myself through purgatory to submit my appeal.

[Deleted User]

So it's a complaint about being sold an endowment? Probably just a yes or no would be good at this point!

dunstonh

Only a claims-chaser company has mentioned NHL and tha year being eligible.- surprise! I'm too old to go through the shredder a second time.


Thereby, if FCA coldly vetoes my (wholly justified) claim solely because it's "out of time/favour", I needn't now put myself through purgatory to submit my appeal.

1987 is before regulation existed. So, you cannot complain using the regulated complaints process.
1987 with a 25 year endowment would have matured in 2012. So, even if you could complain, it could be timebarred because it is longer than 3 years from being reasonably aware of an issue.
You are not able to use the courts as it was over 15 years ago.