Sending Statements to Multiple Addresses

eskbanker

Hadn't seen this thread for a while but now see that my earlier posts were made while under a misconception that the 'incorrect address' concerned was nothing to do with you, rather than it being your property that's mortgaged by the bank, which (in the absence of formalised consent to let) they'd, not unreasonably, consider to be your primary residence, even if you'd asked for correspondence to be directed to an alternative address.

To me, this paints things in a different light, in that the two issues I thought were separate clearly are linked after all, and the bank's conduct is more understandable.

That's not to say they're without fault though, but I can't see much more mileage in the 'incorrect address' issue, so would concentrate on the more substantive matter of your reliance on their employee's explicit guidance. I'd have thought that they're on pretty weak ground regarding their right to fine you but in a stronger position regarding their right to collect the differential costs between a standard and a buy-to-let mortgage for the period concerned....

Cotta

eskbanker wrote: »

Hadn't seen this thread for a while but now see that my earlier posts were made while under a misconception that the 'incorrect address' concerned was nothing to do with you, rather than it being your property that's mortgaged by the bank, which (in the absence of formalised consent to let) they'd, not unreasonably, consider to be your primary residence, even if you'd asked for correspondence to be directed to an alternative address.

To me, this paints things in a different light, in that the two issues I thought were separate clearly are linked after all, and the bank's conduct is more understandable.

That's not to say they're without fault though, but I can't see much more mileage in the 'incorrect address' issue, so would concentrate on the more substantive matter of your reliance on their employee's explicit guidance. I'd have thought that they're on pretty weak ground regarding their right to fine you but in a stronger position regarding their right to collect the differential costs between a standard and a buy-to-let mortgage for the period concerned....

The fine stands, it is now off to the Ombudsman for a final decision. The bottom lines appears to be that the email I accepted as fact from the BOI was considered too casual by FOS and I should have treated it with more caution. Adjudicator has recommended that the bank issue a formal response to my email from many months ago clarifying their position.

badger09

Cotta wrote: »

I think the consent to let part is to counter their error with the documents, I emailed directly to find out more but their not budging and they are not accepting the email I got from the mortgage advisor giving consent to let, they feel this is inadequate.

badger09 wrote: »

What does the email actually say?

When my son obtained consent to let, from Halifax, he received several pages of paperwork clearly setting out the T&Cs of their consent, which he had to sign & return.

I'm sceptical that an email from a mortgage advisor would contain the formal consent:cool:

Cotta wrote: »

The fine stands, it is now off to the Ombudsman for a final decision. The bottom lines appears to be that the email I accepted as fact from the BOI was considered too casual by FOS and I should have treated it with more caution. Adjudicator has recommended that the bank issue a formal response to my email from many months ago clarifying their position.

Much as I suggested in June, and quite clearly set out here.

https://www.bankofirelanduk.com/mortgages/existing-customer/letting-my-residential-property/#overview

I wouldn't hold your breath for a different decision.

Cotta

Final decision by the adjudicator as follows:

1. BOI did not wrong is send the letter to the incorrect address, as far as BOI understood the house was not being let.

2. The fee and fine stands for letting the house out, the mortgage advisor's email consent is insufficient and against BOI rules - I should not have accepted this email as consent.

eskbanker

Cotta wrote: »

Final decision by the adjudicator as follows:

1. BOI did not wrong is send the letter to the incorrect address, as far as BOI understood the house was not being let.

2. The fee and fine stands for letting the house out, the mortgage advisor's email consent is insufficient and against BOI rules - I should not have accepted this email as consent.

Is that the adjudicator's last contribution before it's escalated to the ombudsman (I thought you'd already taken that step last week)?

Cotta

eskbanker wrote: »

Is that the adjudicator's last contribution before it's escalated to the ombudsman (I thought you'd already taken that step last week)?

Yes final contribution, he only email the final correspondence today so it's been escalated as of today.