Natwest mortgage misselling

BoGoF

Whatever happened to personal responsibility.

Rewind back to 2011 when I assume you were 35 you did not realise that a 30 year mortgage would take you past your intended retirement age of 60?

Unreasonable doesn't even close to what you want to happen.

shaft1

had a quick look at the ombudsman website and there is an example similar to mine. it looks like it comes down to two things...

1. what retirement age should be used and
2. who to blame for allowing a mortgage which runs into retirement

For the 2nd, I guess in my case i have to accept some blame given my intelligence and job but not all as i had an hour long chat with mortgage 'specialist' who recommended that the mortgage i was about to take on was suitable.

haras_nosirrah

You want them to write off 43k plus interest

No chance at all

You can either pay 200 a month and finish it earlier or pay a lump sum from your pension

Your state pension age is 67 or 68 so it is still not term into retirement even running to the end of your original term

Why did you say 60? You could have said 50 and got 15 yrs free - you missed a trick there

Southernman

shaft1 wrote: »

I guess I'm saying that i want the mortgage to end at 60 (5 years reduction to the current mortgage term) but keep the same monthly repayments. That's equates to being let off £200 per month for the next 18 years!!!

Not sure what else could I be reasonably asking for?

I know from work experience that banks will try to fob people off in the first instance and only if it is escalated that they will be start being reasonable. It might sound wrong but they have nothing to lose from sending a little sweetener cheque and hoping that i go away but a lot to gain.

I think i will speak to the ombudsman and see what they have to say. Hopefully i'm not the first person with such a complaint and they'll be able to tell me quickly if i'm being unreasonable or have a valid case.

So you're asking for £43k? (12x18)x£200

Trust me it's not going to happen. Responsibility lies on the customer to establish how long they wish the mortgage term to be.

Could it be that at the time you felt that 65 was a reasonable time to retire but now, 7 years later you have changed that time frame to 60 instead as your circumstances have changed? I don't believe you couldn't add up previously and regardless of job role this is a simple calculation for anyone.

FOS will say what has been offered already is fair and reasonable. I suggest continue to overpay as you have been to help reduce your mortgage term to finish at 60 rather than 65. I'm pretty dubious that you'll get any success from escalation.

Thrugelmir

shaft1 wrote: »

Hi, looking for some advice please...

took out a repayment mortgage with Natwest in 2011 with a term of 30 years and monthly payments of £2,400. the mortgage ends when i am 65 years and 4 months, which is after normal retirement age of 65.

The 2007 Pension Act had already been passed into law. Raising the retirement of age of both men and woman from 65 to 68 between 2024 and 2046.

The 2011 Pension Act then put into place a state retirement age of 66 for both men and woman by October 2020.

ACG

shaft1 wrote: »

I guess I'm saying that i want the mortgage to end at 60 (5 years reduction to the current mortgage term) but keep the same monthly repayments. That's equates to being let off £200 per month for the next 18 years!!!

Not sure what else could I be reasonably asking for?

I just burst out laughing when I read that last sentence.

The bank has to put you in the position you would have been had the mistake not happened, therefore upping your payments to what they would be in order to clear the debt in time would form part of that.

There is an argument that the balance is higher than it would be had the mistake not happened and also the interest charged is out, but as it is more difficult to work that out and who is to actually blame as it is a bit of your fault and a bit of theirs, they have just offered a payment they think covers it and you disagree with.

But they appear to be fairly confident judging by the fact they have basically said if you do not like it, go to the ombudsman. They have not opened the floor to negotiation. They must be quite confident you will not get a better offer going to the ombudsman, although that does not mean anything.

If you go back with your request for them to cover the difference for the next however many years, in my opinion you have no chance and I also doubt the ombudsman would look favourably on it.

dunstonh

I guess I'm saying that i want the mortgage to end at 60 (5 years reduction to the current mortgage term) but keep the same monthly repayments. That's equates to being let off £200 per month for the next 18 years!!!

I guess you have a bit of an evening drink when you typed that. It is not going to happen and your proposal is preposterous.

The ombudsman will look at whether you have been made worse off and you havent been. You have had lower payments for the last 7 number of years. So, its not like you have been overcharged. You have had financial gain. The overpayments you made effectively brought you back where you would have been.

The bank using 65 is just the sort of silly admin that banks do sometimes. Everyone else would use the current state pension age. Banks are weird that way.

Farmerbob

So in essence the advisor did not fully discuss your retirement age however with out knowing what else was discussed as part of the factfind whos to know why they decided a 30 year term was suitable for your needs at the time.
I doubt it was plucked out of nowhere so it must have also been based on other factors covered during the conversation, but I guess having gone this far that NatWest have checked the case and not uncovered any other areas lacking in the advice given therefore I cant see why youd be entitled to more given the rest of the advice was sound

dunstonh

For reference, Natwest had to review 30,000 files for sales between 1 June 2011 to 31 March 2013. This followed a number of sub-standard reviews in earlier years and a failure by Natwest to put things right. One of the failings was to adequately document mortgages into retirement. (from the FCA published details on the fine and the failings).

The failings started when the state pension age was 65. The agreement was to use that age in the review. As this is a forced review by the regulator observing set criteria, it is handled differently to how a normal complaint would be.

This explains why they are using age 65 rather than the increased state pension age you would expect the ombudsman to use

I was also able to locate a similar case from the review that someone disagreed with Natwest(RBS) and it was rejected. The FOS using the higher retirement age and actually covered off the increase in state pension age in the response.
http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=167794

FCA required review outcomes and FOS complaint decisions are two different things.

minimike2

Couldn't actually believe I was reading the words of an actuary as I reviewed this one.

The "mis-selling" thread delivers again.