Complaint upheld

Rad-Niknam

Hi, Dunstonh, you have been recommended to further query on the followings:
Could you please spare any thoughts on the borrowers exploring possible recompense from FSCS when Royal Life Estate (company xy say who went out of business) which was tied to Royal Life who mis-sold the policy and also mediated a mortgage with nationwide  (nw) on its own free will without being tied to them, whom ombudsman found responsible for mis - selling both products, policy & the mortgage? Can borrowers approach FSCS for redress and if so based on the figures what would be the borrower's entitlement? Any advise shall be most appreciated! 

dunstonh

Could you please spare any thoughts on the borrowers exploring possible recompense from FSCS when Royal Life Estate (company xy say who went out of business) which was tied to Royal Life who mis-sold the policy and also mediated a mortgage with nationwide  (nw) on its own free will without being tied to them, whom ombudsman found responsible for mis - selling both products, policy & the mortgage?

The FSCS does not apply.   The FOS would not have considered the cased and ruled with an uphold decision if it did.   Basically the FOS deals with complaints where there the legal entity responsible still exists.    The FSCS deals with complaints where it doesn't exist.      The FOS would have told you to to to the FSCS if it didnt exist.

Mortgages themselves were not regulated until October 2004.   So, complaints prior to that date would not be considered unless the firm volunteered to consider pre-regulation complaints.   The investment product linked to mortgages was 29th April 1988.

What has the FOS actually upheld the case on? (the endowment or the mortgage?)

Rad-Niknam

This is what the ombudsman said:
 "as the appointment for their mortgage was not in a Nationwide branch, I looked further into the business detailed on the appointment. Royal Life Estate was trading name of a business called McQuitty & Co Ltd. That business was a financial advisor and independent mortgage broker.
McQuitty was tied to Royal Life at the time of the sale and so any life or investment products sold to Mr and Mrs R would have been that product provider. Royal Life would have had responsibility for the sale of those products - now the responsibility of Phoenix. However the mortgage broking would have been done on its own behalf. "
Any thoughts on this please whether there should be any redress payable by Phoenix, and whether a legal action against Pheonix, based on the ombudsman's decision, or any other remits to bring it to a successful conclusion would be possible? Many thanks! 

TrickyDicky101

Rad-Niknam said:

This is what the ombudsman said:
 "as the appointment for their mortgage was not in a Nationwide branch, I looked further into the business detailed on the appointment. Royal Life Estate was trading name of a business called McQuitty & Co Ltd. That business was a financial advisor and independent mortgage broker.
McQuitty was tied to Royal Life at the time of the sale and so any life or investment products sold to Mr and Mrs R would have been that product provider. Royal Life would have had responsibility for the sale of those products - now the responsibility of Phoenix. However the mortgage broking would have been done on its own behalf. "
Any thoughts on this please whether there should be any redress payable by Phoenix, and whether a legal action against Pheonix, based on the ombudsman's decision, or any other remits to bring it to a successful conclusion would be possible? Many thanks! 

Is that all that the Ombudsman stated?  They are not upholding your complaint if so - it is stating that Royal Life was responsible [for the sale, but no comment on any 'miss-sale'].  You won't get anywhere if RL/Phoenix can't identify the policy (and you are also unable to recover the number).

Rad-Niknam

The complaint was upheld in so far as the lender and the R/L saying the complaint was out of time, the ombudsman disagreed and ruled that it was in time. Further adding that to be able to assess the redress the policy document was required. 
Yes as we thought we cannot progress unless there is a number. Any thoughts on how it should progress, by a slim chance should the policy doc, number or both were to be found. Many thanks to all who helped and participated! 

dunstonh

McQuitty was tied to Royal Life at the time of the sale and so any life or investment products sold to Mr and Mrs R would have been that product provider. 

In that scenario, the insurer is responsible for the insurance sale but has no liability for the mortgage sale.  Mortgages were not regulated until October 2004 - So, the FSCS cannot consider complaints from before Oct 2004.

 Royal Life would have had responsibility for the sale of those products - now the responsibility of Phoenix. 

Only the endowment.

Any thoughts on this please whether there should be any redress payable by Phoenix, and whether a legal action against Pheonix, based on the ombudsman's decision, or any other remits to bring it to a successful conclusion would be possible? Many thanks! 

Legal action is difficult as there would need to be evidence.  Both of the product itself and a wrongdoing.

The complaint was upheld in so far as the lender and the R/L saying the complaint was out of time, the ombudsman disagreed and ruled that it was in time. Further adding that to be able to assess the redress the policy document was required. 

Ah, so the FOS have overruled the timebar and told Phoenix to look at it. Phoenix have responded saying that there is no evidence.   Effectively you had two complaints.  1) That phoenix would not consider the complaint.  and 2) now the FOS told them to look at it, they have concluded that there is no evidence for them to be able to make a decision.  

So, either you find evidence or you go back to the FOS again.  However, FOS, are a little inconsistent when it comes to evidence.    If there is no file at all, they may try and reconstitute some of it from things you may have but with nothing at all, they usually say they cannot rule on the case unless it is an obvious failure.

Rad-Niknam

1) & 2) did not occur, do you think we now need to go back and make a further complaint that phoenix wouldn't pay up, or what is it that needs to happen. Ombudsman has clearly said the complaint is Not time barred, but that she needs policy document to assess the damages. So you're ab correct in saying as far as ombudsman is concerned fos has left it in the air, so what do you think needs to happen now? Sorry guys pretty frustrating I know, hence it had been left in suspense since early 2019. Please explain clearly if you can as to what needs to happen moving forward and whether there would be a time limitation applicable . Many thanks! 

dunstonh

do you think we now need to go back and make a further complaint that phoenix wouldn't pay up, or what is it that needs to happen.

Your complaint has not been upheld by the FOS.   All they have told Phoenix is that the timebar cannot be applied.    Phoenix have now said they cannot review your complaint as they have no info.   So, you are in a limbo with effectively no decision.    Phoenix wont pay out in that scenario and the FOS wont tell them to either.  There has to be enough information to suggest wrongdoing and nothing available yet has suggested any wrongdoing.

so what do you think needs to happen now?

Effectively, you are stuffed unless you get hold of some information that aids your case.

Rad-Niknam

Many thanks! As we thought all along. This is not bound by a timeline is it? 

dunstonh

Rad-Niknam said:

Many thanks! As we thought all along. This is not bound by a timeline is it? 

They could apply for 6 months timebar from their letter saying they could not find anything  However, it must state that in the letter (i.e. you have 6 months to refer it to the FOS).  Some firms will waive that if new evidence is found but others will not.