Martin: 'PPI's over, but I've THIRTEEN more ways you can reclaim £1,000s' - MSE News

MSE_Chris_D

'I'm no fan of a compensation culture. Instead MSE and I have long, proudly been at the forefront of reclaiming – that's getting YOUR money back when it shouldn't have been taken (or if you weren't paid what you should've been). Compensation is different, it's using the law to get extra money, often as a punishment'...

Read the full story:
Martin: 'PPI's over, but I've THIRTEEN more ways you can reclaim £1,000s'

Click reply below to discuss. If you haven't already, join the forum to reply.

peterbaker

14) Mis-sold post October 2004 Interest Only mortgages?

societys_child

Interest Only mortgages?

Erm, think that's already been tried . .

societys_child

I've thirteen more ways you can reclaim £1,000s'

So you've nothing new then?

[Deleted User]

societys_child wrote: »

So you've nothing new then?

Yeah, just the old reliables that have been available for years. Nothing new..

peterbaker

societys_child wrote: »

Erm, think that's already been tried . .

Erm, think that's only just got started you mean. What are you doing here on MSE putting dampeners on just causes? Think you know best for the rest of society? :rotfl:

SonOf

peterbaker wrote: »

Erm, think that's only just got started you mean. What are you doing here on MSE putting dampeners on just causes? Think you know best for the rest of society? :rotfl:

Both the FOS and the FSCS have been highly critical of claims companies putting in bogus mortgage complaints. The current uphold rates are around 5%.

Even when a complaint is upheld, frequently it sees no redress as the gain in property value is taken into account. And as most properties have gone up and mortgages have been cheaper than rent the person is no worse off.

Indeed, a recent FOS decision that upheld a complaint said redress would only be paid if the house was sold in the next 12 months at market value and the value minus costs was less than the original purchase price plus costs.

The FOS have also been pretty routine in rejecting interest-only complaints where the sale was before the credit crunch saying that it was allowed by the FCA and no rules were broken by having interest only. This is usually because most lenders arranged their mortgages on a non-advised basis.

peterbaker

SonOf wrote: »

Both the FOS and the FSCS have been highly critical of claims companies putting in bogus mortgage complaints. The current uphold rates are around 5%.

Even when a complaint is upheld, frequently it sees no redress as the gain in property value is taken into account. And as most properties have gone up and mortgages have been cheaper than rent the person is no worse off.

Indeed, a recent FOS decision that upheld a complaint said redress would only be paid if the house was sold in the next 12 months at market value and the value minus costs was less than the original purchase price plus costs.

The FOS have also been pretty routine in rejecting interest-only complaints where the sale was before the credit crunch saying that it was allowed by the FCA and no rules were broken by having interest only. This is usually because most lenders arranged their mortgages on a non-advised basis.

So? Since when has FOS been the true final arbiter on mis-selling scandals as they emerged from the fog of past banking misdeeds? They are staffed mostly by banking apologists.

MSE has proved the far better arbiter once it gets going despite bank apologists mischievously pulling back on the reins at every turn - ultimately in vain, thank goodness.

Interest only mortgages are mis-sold if no collateral is ring-fenced to pay off the loan at maturity. Huge numbers of interest only mortgages linked to assigned collateral were sold in the 60s 70s 80s right up to early 90s.

That assigned collateral was of course endowment policies in the main and in the earlier decades the lending and control of collateral for repayment was on the face of it responsible. And Mr Mainwaring was still a bank manager ...

However, when the endowment scandal began and mealy-mouthed shortfall letters started arriving on our doorsteps, responsible lending also went out the window. Lenders (for reasons best known to themselves) saw little purpose in continuing with a lending requirement that demanded assigned collateral in the form of an endowment policy or some other device to store in their vaults until maturity. The one-legged "interest only" mortgage was born, another surprising laxity, running fast on the heels of self-certification lending laxity, and of course the earlier sale of various weird and wonderful "low-start" mortgages as "Wham bang thank you M'am" sales aids for lender sales forces.

As with the early days of allegations of endowment mis-selling and PPI mis-selling, mortgage mis-selling is currently looked upon by lenders and FOS as ideally requiring the identification of an inept or corrupt middleman or sales operative to blame for the "mis-sale". That's an industry lie. It requires no such person. All it requires is a ruthless board of directors at the lender out to line their pockets with enormous salaries and bonuses for enhanced "sales performance".

In practice of course it always emerges that it is lender policies and their sales imperatives, deliberately deployed sales training and methods which are fully to blame, not individuals at the sharp end simply doing their jobs unquestioningly as required by their lender employers.

The same will out with interest only mortgages in particular. FCA controls FOS when it sets its mind to it. FCA will act when FOS anti-consumer tendencies on mortgage complaints start embarrassing the industry daily. Most senior FOS staff learned their stuff at financial services firms during the worst days of mis-selling, so are likely unwittingly groomed to think in unfair ways about financial services products and services thereafter. Their Ombudsmen see themselves as judges when in fact they are very poor dispensers of justice. Upheld cases with awards of £150 for a mortgage complaint are an embarrassing joke.

FSA immediately stepped in to tighten up mortgage lending affordability requirements from 31st October 2004 when they took over regulation of mortgage lending. By 2010 and especially having seen what p-poor lending controls can do to the entire financial system, FSA were not happy that their 2004 interventions had had effect and consequently after a long gestation period known as the Mortgage Market Review, we had the new responsible lending regulations introduced in April 2014. Ten years of mis-selling was rife between the two interventions.

The next time FCA step in will be intended to see that prosecution of the unaffordable mortgage mis-selling scandal that clearly took place between 2004 and 2014 will be enabled to gain traction I think. And they will have plenty of manpower at FOS to dispense it once the dregs of PPI has tailed off.

In all their papers on the subject, time and time again, FSA, and FCA have chosen openly to remind us that the malpractices were commonplace. It now remains for those clear misdeeds to be properly prosecuted. Going for compensation for mis-sold mortgages is a therefore an open goal waiting for traffic, but as with all the mis-selling scandals, the pitch is long and there will be plenty or habitual naysayers trying to block the path.

No matter. Published FCA papers will help press the case - they were written with consumers in mind, unlike the few other responses on this thread so far - including yours dunstonh!