MISSOLD My Choice HomeBuy Equity Loan - Help, Martin!

Thrugelmir

Learning_Curve said:

Thrugelmir said:

Learning_Curve said:

As I understand it, the lender has to make sure the borrower understands the terms and conditions, the responsibility is on them. 

In accepting the terms and conditions the borrower acknowledges that they accept them. Lender would automatically suggest independent legal advice if the potential borrower has any concerns. Lender will remain at arms length. 

Thanks. If that was the basis of proof then there couldn't possibly be any missold financial products as I said in my OP. 

UK law and financial regulation is some of the best in the world.  Companies are not going to leave themselves exposed to claims decades later. They'll cover the basics thoroughly. 

If there was an issue with the way the product was sold not just to yourself but others. Then the matter would have arisen by now at a regulatory level. . 

monetxchange

I didn't say you should have googled what the loan you signed for willingly meant. I said the most basic of information could have been found by doing that, which would have been the bare minimum the majority of us would have done before taking on a large financial commitment.

Anyway, good luck with it all. Don't think you'll get far on cases brought on what you "believe" the law is (which apparently I'm doing by stating basic truths). Judges really aren't impressed by litigants showing up and arguing cases based on paradoxes like you mentioned. What theoretically in another situation might have happened if you might have done something you didn't think of but now you believe someone should have told you to is not how the law works. You won't baffle your way into legal success here.

Make sure you look after your own health, physical and mental, before you get in too deep with fixating on this.

Caz3121

Learning_Curve said:

As I explained in my OP, I returned the money to them that we borrowed and they gave it back. So what I want to do is be able to repay the amount borrowed and for it to be finished with.

then you would need to wait until property prices drop back to the price you purchased at or lower
rather than a mortgage where you borrow £x and pay £x plus interest back, you have a loan for a % and pay that same % back (plus interest)
If you borrowed 25% then you have had the benefit of having been able to afford a property you may not have been able to without it, your monthly payments were lower than if it had all been on a mortgage but the return is that you get 75% of any increase in value rather than 100% and as property prices rise, so does the monetary amount you owe....the % of property does not change
It sounds like your property has increased in value to the extent that the value of the % is now more than your outstanding mortgage
Given that you have tried to give them a lump sum previously, have you discussed whether it is possible to part redeem....eg if you owe them 25% of the property value and you have enough to repay 10% can you do this and they then drop their holding to 15%?

Bonniepurple

I know that the OP has said they have logged off, but just in case they do come back, a quick Google has found a fair few easy to read results, such as https://www.bpha.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/BPHA_RS-Booklet_2016_Shared-Equity-1.pdf
I suspect that the issue the OP has is they borrowed X which was say 50% of the house price and they were anticipating paying back X when they sold, rather than Y which is what the 50% share is now worth.  OP - did you not use a solicitor?  Before you sign on the dotted line is the time to double check your understanding, not after.

FWIW I was recently diagnosed with a life long condition which also affects my understanding in some ways.  I wonder if it’s the same condition that the OP has.  I would not dream of signing something if I didn’t understand it (ok the Apple t&c’s are different!) as to me, an agreement will clearly say “I agree with the terms and conditions”.  Not, “I am signing because I want this and I don’t care what the impact is in the future” but “I understand and accept what I am agreeing to”.

MWT

Learning_Curve said:

I have some lifelong conditions that affect my understanding of things (and I have medical evidence of this), although they were not diagnosed at the time we took out the equity loan. I have told the housing association this and they just said we signed the forms which means we understood. Of course this is illogical because on that basis no financial product could ever be missold.

That is not true.

Your condition was undiagnosed and hence undisclosed, so they had no reason to believe that when you affirmed that you understood the product there would be any special reason to doubt your affirmation.

The grounds for a mis-selling case don't have to revolve purely around the understanding and explanation of the product, they can also be that the advice given was poor or incorrect, so for example if you did not need an equity loan and could have afforded a traditional mortgage but you were advised otherwise, that could lead to a mis-selling claim.

So was that the case? ...could you have afforded to buy the property without the equity loan?

The problem with the path you  are trying to follow is that you would have to show that the product was not explained to you and that is why I suggested you start with the solicitor you originally used, if their notes show that they simple witnessed your signatures on the documents and did not discuss any product details then you are one step up the chain towards showing that the product was not explained to you...

You need to unravel the steps that led to you taking the product to prove your case, but it is unlikely you will get very far before you will be faced with a document explaining the product which you will have signed, affirming that you have read and understood it.

When you get to that point it isn't going to be enough to claim that you didn't understand it but signed it anyway, unless the explanation is so badly written that any reasonable person would have failed to understand it...

In this case the clue was always there in the name, it was an 'equity' loan and that by itself should have been enough for you to realize that it was not 'rent' or a reducing balance as there was no mention of either of those things in the documents you would have signed.

To support your case you would have to be able to point at things in the documents that would lead you to reasonably form the belief that you apparently formed...

You say you have a new lawyer so talk to them and be guided by them but always ask what the chance of success is and what the whole process is likely to cost you as you may find yourself wasting a lot of money on something that ultimately proves to be fruitless and only serves to enrich your new lawyer...

monetxchange

Bonniepurple said:

I know that the OP has said they have logged off, but just in case they do come back, a quick Google has found a fair few easy to read results, such as https://www.bpha.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/BPHA_RS-Booklet_2016_Shared-Equity-1.pdf
I suspect that the issue the OP has is they borrowed X which was say 50% of the house price and they were anticipating paying back X when they sold, rather than Y which is what the 50% share is now worth.  OP - did you not use a solicitor?  Before you sign on the dotted line is the time to double check your understanding, not after.

FWIW I was recently diagnosed with a life long condition which also affects my understanding in some ways.  I wonder if it’s the same condition that the OP has.  I would not dream of signing something if I didn’t understand it (ok the Apple t&c’s are different!) as to me, an agreement will clearly say “I agree with the terms and conditions”.  Not, “I am signing because I want this and I don’t care what the impact is in the future” but “I understand and accept what I am agreeing to”.

I think that's exactly what's happened. OP wants to pay up X in cash when the lender is entitled to Y of the sale. Currently getting one of these myself and my broker was at pains to make sure I understood the terms. He said he sees loads of people who went into them without research thinking they were a free cash situation, a little favour from the government, and were shocked when they had to start paying interest or were expected to pay Y instead of X when they sold. The main takeaway I got is you plan to overpay mortgage/save a lump sum so you can remortgage when the interest free part of the loan is up and get it tagged on to your mortgage. There's a very clear MSE guide on here that explains it very clearly.

[Deleted User]

Learning_Curve said:

monetxchange said:

 Did you get any other advice from a mortgage advisor or broker at the time? I was advised by mine that the goal is to get these loans paid off asap.

We used a mortgage broker who just did the paperwork, no additional advice was given from what I recall, but if it was, it made no difference to our understanding anyway.

Best case scenario would be against solicitor or broker for failing to identify a vulnerable customer and offering to have  atranslator present.  Im not sure it is a regulatory requirement but its certianly part of my compliance if someone isnt from this country I have to state if a translator was offered and if not then why not.   Same with someone who would lack understanding of financial matters.   If you were clearly vulnerable and they didnt do anything about it then perhaps its something you can explore. 

But you say in your message that it wasnt diagnosed when you took it out so would they have expected to spot something that wasnt there? 

MWT

All of these circles go around to the same place, if the product was appropriate for someone in the applicants financial position, buying the particular property and with their disclosed future intentions, and they received explanations of the product to a good standard and then affirmed that they understood, even if they didn't, how is it ever going to be 'mis-sold'?

It seems that even the two applicants themselves have different understandings of what they thought they had agreed to, which doesn't suggest there was a lot of discussion between them at the time either...

mortgagetakingages

What a bizarre post.
You don't own the % of the house you got homebuyer support for. 

You are paying rent for that element to enjoy your home. 

If/when you sell you home you will also be selling a % you don't own and therefore you will not get the money. 

You are not losing out you don't own that % and if you want to own it you need to get a valuation and pay what is valued now. 

Nothing you have said indicates you have been missold.