Mis-sold NatWest Offset Interest Only Mortgage - Advice needed

Mido74 · 18 February at 6:56PM

I dont now where to start. Its a bit of a mess.
I married my Husband in 2018 and in 2019 decided to look over his finances now we were married. He has a flat he rents out (right to let given by the bank) and is currently on interest only offset mortgage with NatWest. Having looked over his paperwork I immediately felt there was something wrong. We have liaised directly with the bank over these concerns and my Husband asked for a copy of all signed documents from his file because there is barely anything in his file at home. He was told there was no file for him to be found and he needed to apply for SARs request, which he did. On receipt of this it is very clear that the bank have made several errors. They stated on his offer letter that he intended to repay the mortgage with an endowment policy of £91k (he does not have and has never had an endowment policy, would the bank not have needed proof of this?) He was also told at the time that he could not take out the mortgage without a certain policy which NatWest sold to him at the same time of the mortgage (He was sold a fixed term life assurance, not Endowment policy as stated on the offer letter). We can see that NatWest have sold him a mortgage he can not afford. The life assurance sold was also set up to end 13 years before the end of the mortgage term! and also pays out absolutely nothing at the end!! There are several other issues in terms of the valuation given of the property by the bank and a few other inconsistencies.
We do understand that ultimately responsibility lies with the lender to pay the mortgage by the end of the term, but there has been zero duty of care in the setting up of the mortgage correspondence during or discussion about how the mortgage will be paid. My Husband did not have an Endowment in place to pay out at the end of the mortgage on maturity (even though that's what is stated on the offer letter) he was foolishly under the impression that the policy he was sold at the time of taking the mortgage out was how he would ultimately pay. This is because the bank told him that this is the policy he needed.
We are now in a position where there is no way he can pay the mortgage by the end date, even by overpaying each month. The property is in negative equity (probably due to the ridiculously high valuation given by the bank at the time) and we can not afford to switch to a buy to let having already looked at this just before lockdown.
We complained to the bank and they said we are outside of the time limits given by the Financial Regulator, however the info discovered after the SARs request means this was the 'first time' we noticed an issue which according to the Financial Services Association means we get another three years in which to bring a complaint.
Where can we go for free help and advice? We intend to log this with the Financial Ombudsman.
We need help!! Thanks for reading, we feel desperate.

tacpot12 · 18 February at 7:16PM

The life insurance is required and people often buy what the lender offers them, i.e. decreasing term insurance. such that the policy has no value at the end. Your husband could have bought different insurance from other providers, but took the easy way out. An insurance broker would have got him sorted with a better policy, and perhaps would have picked up on your husband's misconception that the life policy was going to repay the mortgage, but some simple maths would have shown that to be quite false - you cannot pay £5 a month for 25 years and expect it to be worth £91,000! (It would be worth about £2000).

The life insurance term ending 13 years before the mortgage is an issue, but it is the life insurance that has been mis-sold and not the mortgage. I would suggest that he complains and asks the bank to re-write the policy so that it covers the remaining term. They should be able to do this at zero cost to them, so it is should be an easy way out of the complaint.

The bank didn't used to ask for proof that people had the repayment plans in place, but they have been required to write to their interest-only customers for the last 10 years asking them to confirm that they have a plan to repay the mortgage, so he will have been asked the question previously, probably a number of times. I am guessing that at each review he still though that his life policy was an Endowment Policy that would clear the mortgage. You are correct that he should have some time once he has realised that he made a mistake, but he needs to act promptly.

Personally I don't think a complaint about mortgage mis-selling is (or should) going to get very far, but others might have a different view.

The best option is to ask the bank what it would cost for him to go onto a repayment mortgage now, and then ask a mortage broker to improve on the offer. You husband will likely need more life insurance, if he takes on a repayment mortgage, but he also has you to consider so probably needs a full review of his life cover needs with an insurance broker. He might consider switching to a repayment mortgage while he complains about the mis-selling.

ACG · 18 February at 7:22PM

I have tried to put in answers below. What you think is irrelevant, you were not party to the sale and people have a habit of forgetting things or selective hearing as my Mrs tells me.

Rules now a days are very different to 20-30 years ago.

I dont mean my replies to come across as negative. You may get somewhere with a complaint. But you cant make a complaint based on todays rules. Your arguments are also opposites at times regarding the endowment and the inability to afford the mortgage. If you can not afford a mortgage, how can you afford a mortgage and an endowment?

If you are unhappy with the response from Natwest, they should have sent you a letter that tells you you can go to the ombudsman if you are unhappy. There is no help with this, you need to do it on your own. They will investigate and decide on the right outcome. If you are unhappy with that, you can go to court but Natwest would probably use the outcome of the ombudsman in their defence if you decide to take it to court.

I have just read my replies back - dont let them put you off taking it further. I am just playing devils advocate as the way you have described it does not make it sound horrendous based on what was probably the rules at the time (a bit before my time). I think @kingstreet and @dunstonh might be better placed to answer though, they have a few more years experience than I do.

They stated on his offer letter that he intended to repay the mortgage with an endowment policy of £91k (he does not have and has never had an endowment policy, would the bank not have needed proof of this?) - Back in the day, no. It was possible to just say you would set one up.

He was also told at the time that he could not take out the mortgage without a certain policy which NatWest sold to him at the same time of the mortgage (He was sold a fixed term life assurance, not Endowment policy as stated on the offer letter). - Back in the day some lenders did insist on a life policy being taken out as part of the mortgage.

We can see that NatWest have sold him a mortgage he can not afford. - He cant afford it now or could not afford it when taken out? It has been paid for many years if we are talking endowments. They cant assess if he can afford it 20 years down the line as life changes.

The life assurance sold was also set up to end 13 years before the end of the mortgage term! and also pays out absolutely nothing at the end!! There are several other issues in terms of the valuation given of the property by the bank and a few other inconsistencies. - This seems odd.

We do understand that ultimately responsibility lies with the lender to pay the mortgage by the end of the term, but there has been zero duty of care in the setting up of the mortgage correspondence during or discussion about how the mortgage will be paid. How do you know? You were not part of the original conversation. Rules are different now to how they were 20 years ago. I have been a broker for 13 years and a lot has changed in that time.

My Husband did not have an Endowment in place to pay out at the end of the mortgage on maturity (even though that's what is stated on the offer letter) he was foolishly under the impression that the policy he was sold at the time of taking the mortgage out was how he would ultimately pay. This is because the bank told him that this is the policy he needed. - If he could not afford the mortgage (as you say above), how was he also going to pay for an endowment?

We are now in a position where there is no way he can pay the mortgage by the end date, even by overpaying each month.

The property is in negative equity (probably due to the ridiculously high valuation given by the bank at the time) - Your husband made an offer for that amount on the property so he must have thought it was worth that and so must the surveyor.

We complained to the bank and they said we are outside of the time limits given by the Financial Regulator, however the info discovered after the SARs request means this was the 'first time' we noticed an issue which according to the Financial Services Association means we get another three years in which to bring a complaint. - Was your husband provided with paperwork he had not already received?

Where can we go for free help and advice? - Here -> We intend to log this with the Financial Ombudsman.

Mido74 · 18 February at 7:22PM

tacpot12 said:

The life insurance is required and people often buy what the lender offers them, i.e. decreasing term insurance. such that the policy has no value at the end. Your husband could have bought different insurance from other providers, but took the easy way out. An insurance broker would have got him sorted with a better policy, and perhaps would have picked up on your husband's misconception that the life policy was going to repay the mortgage, but some simple maths would have shown that to be quite false - you cannot pay £5 a month for 25 years and expect it to be worth £91,000! (It would be worth about £2000).

The life insurance term ending 13 years before the mortgage is an issue, but it is the life insurance that has been mis-sold and not the mortgage. I would suggest that he complains and asks the bank to re-write the policy so that it covers the remaining term. They should be able to do this at zero cost to them, so it is should be an easy way out of the complaint.

The bank didn't used to ask for proof that people had the repayment plans in place, but they have been required to write to their interest-only customers for the last 10 years asking them to confirm that they have a plan to repay the mortgage, so he will have been asked the question previously, probably a number of times. I am guessing that at each review he still though that his life policy was an Endowment Policy that would clear the mortgage.

I don't think a complaint about mortgage mis-selling is going to get very far, but others might have a different view.

The best option is to ask the bank what it would cost for him to go onto a repayment mortgage now, and then ask a mortage broker to improve on the offer. You husband will likely need more life insurance, if he takes on a repayment mortgage, but he also has you to consider so probably needs a full review of his life cover needs with an insurance broker.

Thanks for getting back to me!!
He has not been asked how he intends to pay back the mortgage? And also there was nothing within the documents received from the SARs request that suggests he has been sent such a letter containing this question? He has had nothing from them in years... and has never had a review.

user1977 · 18 February at 7:40PM

Mido74 said:

tacpot12 said:

The life insurance is required and people often buy what the lender offers them, i.e. decreasing term insurance. such that the policy has no value at the end. Your husband could have bought different insurance from other providers, but took the easy way out. An insurance broker would have got him sorted with a better policy, and perhaps would have picked up on your husband's misconception that the life policy was going to repay the mortgage, but some simple maths would have shown that to be quite false - you cannot pay £5 a month for 25 years and expect it to be worth £91,000! (It would be worth about £2000).

The life insurance term ending 13 years before the mortgage is an issue, but it is the life insurance that has been mis-sold and not the mortgage. I would suggest that he complains and asks the bank to re-write the policy so that it covers the remaining term. They should be able to do this at zero cost to them, so it is should be an easy way out of the complaint.

The bank didn't used to ask for proof that people had the repayment plans in place, but they have been required to write to their interest-only customers for the last 10 years asking them to confirm that they have a plan to repay the mortgage, so he will have been asked the question previously, probably a number of times. I am guessing that at each review he still though that his life policy was an Endowment Policy that would clear the mortgage.

I don't think a complaint about mortgage mis-selling is going to get very far, but others might have a different view.

The best option is to ask the bank what it would cost for him to go onto a repayment mortgage now, and then ask a mortage broker to improve on the offer. You husband will likely need more life insurance, if he takes on a repayment mortgage, but he also has you to consider so probably needs a full review of his life cover needs with an insurance broker.

He has had nothing from them in years...

Has he kept the bank up to date with his current address? (given he's obviously not living at the mortgaged property)

Mido74 · 18 February at 7:40PM

ACG said:

I have tried to put in answers below. What you think is irrelevant, you were not party to the sale and people have a habit of forgetting things or selective hearing as my Mrs tells me.

Rules now a days are very different to 20-30 years ago.

I dont mean my replies to come across as negative. You may get somewhere with a complaint. But you cant make a complaint based on todays rules. Your arguments are also opposites at times regarding the endowment and the inability to afford the mortgage. If you can not afford a mortgage, how can you afford a mortgage and an endowment?

If you are unhappy with the response from Natwest, they should have sent you a letter that tells you you can go to the ombudsman if you are unhappy. There is no help with this, you need to do it on your own. They will investigate and decide on the right outcome. If you are unhappy with that, you can go to court but Natwest would probably use the outcome of the ombudsman in their defence if you decide to take it to court.

I have just read my replies back - dont let them put you off taking it further. I am just playing devils advocate as the way you have described it does not make it sound horrendous based on what was probably the rules at the time (a bit before my time). I think @kingstreet and @dunstonh might be better placed to answer though, they have a few more years experience than I do.

They stated on his offer letter that he intended to repay the mortgage with an endowment policy of £91k (he does not have and has never had an endowment policy, would the bank not have needed proof of this?) - Back in the day, no. It was possible to just say you would set one up.
He did not say he would set one up.
He was also told at the time that he could not take out the mortgage without a certain policy which NatWest sold to him at the same time of the mortgage (He was sold a fixed term life assurance, not Endowment policy as stated on the offer letter). - Back in the day some lenders did insist on a life policy being taken out as part of the mortgage.
We can see that NatWest have sold him a mortgage he can not afford. - He cant afford it now or could not afford it when taken out? It has been paid for many years if we are talking endowments. They cant assess if he can afford it 20 years down the line as life changes.
He has been affording the payments, but can not afford to pay at the end of the fixed term.
The life assurance sold was also set up to end 13 years before the end of the mortgage term! and also pays out absolutely nothing at the end!! There are several other issues in terms of the valuation given of the property by the bank and a few other inconsistencies. - This seems odd.
Yes!!
We do understand that ultimately responsibility lies with the lender to pay the mortgage by the end of the term, but there has been zero duty of care in the setting up of the mortgage correspondence during or discussion about how the mortgage will be paid. How do you know? You were not part of the original conversation. Rules are different now to how they were 20 years ago. I have been a broker for 13 years and a lot has changed in that time.
I do not mean original conversation, zero duty of care, zero correspondence and zero discussion about how this debt will be paid at the end of the mortgage end date is the facts. Even SARs request proves this in terms of last dated documents being almost 20 years ago.
My Husband did not have an Endowment in place to pay out at the end of the mortgage on maturity (even though that's what is stated on the offer letter) he was foolishly under the impression that the policy he was sold at the time of taking the mortgage out was how he would ultimately pay. This is because the bank told him that this is the policy he needed. - If he could not afford the mortgage (as you say above), how was he also going to pay for an endowment?
As i said, he has been affording monthly payments but will not ultimately be able to pay the debt at the end.
We are now in a position where there is no way he can pay the mortgage by the end date, even by overpaying each month.
The property is in negative equity (probably due to the ridiculously high valuation given by the bank at the time) - Your husband made an offer for that amount on the property so he must have thought it was worth that and so must the surveyor.
My Husband already co-owned the property with his then partner, it was re-mortgaged only a year later to this current mortgage when they split up. The valuation difference between mortgages is considerably higher and questionable. Though I agree, my Husband signed and agreed it so not much can be done (His partner has just left him and his Dad had just died, he was not paying the attention he should have sadly)

We complained to the bank and they said we are outside of the time limits given by the Financial Regulator, however the info discovered after the SARs request means this was the 'first time' we noticed an issue which according to the Financial Services Association means we get another three years in which to bring a complaint. - Was your husband provided with paperwork he had not already received?
I need to double check this one, but the SARs request does not show any letters asking for review or asking how he intends to pay the debt at the end. Or any statements.

Where can we go for free help and advice? - Here -> We intend to log this with the Financial Ombudsman.

Hi, thanks so much for getting back to me!! Ive answered your questions underneath each line above.

Mido74 · 18 February at 8:11PM

Yes, the bank were given his current address when he left, and also when he applied for the right to let permissions.

dunstonh · 18 February at 9:01PM

They stated on his offer letter that he intended to repay the mortgage with an endowment policy of £91k (he does not have and has never had an endowment policy, would the bank not have needed proof of this?)

No, the bank would not have needed evidence of it. Indeed, for some points in time, the banks didnt sell endowment policies and you needed to buy it yourself.

He was also told at the time that he could not take out the mortgage without a certain policy which NatWest sold to him at the same time of the mortgage (He was sold a fixed term life assurance, not Endowment policy as stated on the offer letter).

Endowments haven't been available for nearly 20 years. The last mainstream provided pulled out in 2004. For an endowment policy equivalent (in modern terms) to be put in place, it would require your husband to set one up himself or use an investment class adviser. Mortgage advisers do not hold permissions to set up investment class business.

The life assurance sold was also set up to end 13 years before the end of the mortgage term! and also pays out absolutely nothing at the end!!

Life assurance wouldnt pay anything out at the end. A lot of life assurance policies, especially those from the banks back in the day had to cease at 65 or 70. So, the mortgage could go on longer than the life assurance if you used a restricted service like the bank. Or it could be that your husband told the lender he would be shot of the property long before then and didnt need the life assurance for that long.

We complained to the bank and they said we are outside of the time limits given by the Financial Regulator, however the info discovered after the SARs request means this was the 'first time' we noticed an issue which according to the Financial Services Association means we get another three years in which to bring a complaint.

The time bar is a 3 & 6 year rule. 6 years from the initial sale or 3 years from being reasonably aware of an issue. Given the high level of information supplied at the outset of the mortgage and the use of conveyancers that usually go through the details and risks with the borrower, it would likely be that 6 years from the sale would be timebar.

We intend to log this with the Financial Ombudsman.

If the timebar is valid, then the FOS cannot look at it. First thing the FOS will do is check the timebar.

He has a flat he rents out (right to let given by the bank) and is currently on interest only offset mortgage with NatWest.

It is quite normal for rental properties to be set up on interest only for tax reasons. It is the most common method.

The rules on buy to lets are different for residential. Buy to let consumer protection is very different as well. Plus, mortgages themselves were not regulated until 2004 and buy to lets were usually unregulated.

It would help to have a bit more detail:
1 - when was the mortgage purchased? (this is to ascertain the rules, if any, that were in place at the time)
2 - what age is he when the life assurance ends?
3 - was he originally living in the house at the point the last mortgage deal was purchased or when he bought the property?
4 - has he carried out any remortgages or product transfers since starting the mortgage (i.e buying a new deal) - like a new 2 year fixed rate?

it seems unlikely that someone would think that a term assurance would act as a repayment vehicle. Nothing in any of the paperwork would suggest it di and with a bit of common sense, you could surely see the monthly premium was not even close to being realistic in doing that. He has had x number of years seeing the statements where the amount borrowed doesnt go down. And each statement for over a decade would have a warning about ensuring you can repay it. And not once in those years has he had an investment statement telling him what it is worth. It is a bit of a stretch to persuade a complaints handler that he thought an investment vehicle was in place.

Like above, I am not being negative towards your complaint. Just pointing out the problems that are likely to be in place. With a bit more detail, we may be able to give more.

He has not been asked how he intends to pay back the mortgage? And also there was nothing within the documents received from the SARs request that suggests he has been sent such a letter containing this question? He has had nothing from them in years... and has never had a review.

The lender sends out an annual statement and the warnings are on that. It is upto the consumer to decide if they want a review or not. If the lender knows its a let property, then they wouldn't be asking about repayment vehicles as mortgages for let properties are normally interest only.

Mido74 · 18 February at 9:59PM

dunstonh said:

They stated on his offer letter that he intended to repay the mortgage with an endowment policy of £91k (he does not have and has never had an endowment policy, would the bank not have needed proof of this?)
No, the bank would not have needed evidence of it. Indeed, for some points in time, the banks didnt sell endowment policies and you needed to buy it yourself.

He was also told at the time that he could not take out the mortgage without a certain policy which NatWest sold to him at the same time of the mortgage (He was sold a fixed term life assurance, not Endowment policy as stated on the offer letter).
Endowments haven't been available for nearly 20 years. The last mainstream provided pulled out in 2004. For an endowment policy equivalent (in modern terms) to be put in place, it would require your husband to set one up himself or use an investment class adviser. Mortgage advisers do not hold permissions to set up investment class business.

The life assurance sold was also set up to end 13 years before the end of the mortgage term! and also pays out absolutely nothing at the end!!
Life assurance wouldnt pay anything out at the end. A lot of life assurance policies, especially those from the banks back in the day had to cease at 65 or 70. So, the mortgage could go on longer than the life assurance if you used a restricted service like the bank. Or it could be that your husband told the lender he would be shot of the property long before then and didnt need the life assurance for that long.

We complained to the bank and they said we are outside of the time limits given by the Financial Regulator, however the info discovered after the SARs request means this was the 'first time' we noticed an issue which according to the Financial Services Association means we get another three years in which to bring a complaint.
The time bar is a 3 & 6 year rule. 6 years from the initial sale or 3 years from being reasonably aware of an issue. Given the high level of information supplied at the outset of the mortgage and the use of conveyancers that usually go through the details and risks with the borrower, it would likely be that 6 years from the sale would be timebar.

We intend to log this with the Financial Ombudsman.
If the timebar is valid, then the FOS cannot look at it. First thing the FOS will do is check the timebar.

He has a flat he rents out (right to let given by the bank) and is currently on interest only offset mortgage with NatWest.
It is quite normal for rental properties to be set up on interest only for tax reasons. It is the most common method.

The rules on buy to lets are different for residential. Buy to let consumer protection is very different as well. Plus, mortgages themselves were not regulated until 2004 and buy to lets were usually unregulated.

It would help to have a bit more detail:
1 - when was the mortgage purchased? (this is to ascertain the rules, if any, that were in place at the time)
2 - what age is he when the life assurance ends?
3 - was he originally living in the house at the point the last mortgage deal was purchased or when he bought the property?
4 - has he carried out any remortgages or product transfers since starting the mortgage (i.e buying a new deal) - like a new 2 year fixed rate?

it seems unlikely that someone would think that a term assurance would act as a repayment vehicle. Nothing in any of the paperwork would suggest it di and with a bit of common sense, you could surely see the monthly premium was not even close to being realistic in doing that. He has had x number of years seeing the statements where the amount borrowed doesnt go down. And each statement for over a decade would have a warning about ensuring you can repay it. And not once in those years has he had an investment statement telling him what it is worth. It is a bit of a stretch to persuade a complaints handler that he thought an investment vehicle was in place.

Like above, I am not being negative towards your complaint. Just pointing out the problems that are likely to be in place. With a bit more detail, we may be able to give more.

He has not been asked how he intends to pay back the mortgage? And also there was nothing within the documents received from the SARs request that suggests he has been sent such a letter containing this question? He has had nothing from them in years... and has never had a review.
The lender sends out an annual statement and the warnings are on that. It is upto the consumer to decide if they want a review or not. If the lender knows its a let property, then they wouldn't be asking about repayment vehicles as mortgages for let properties are normally interest only.

Hi, thanks so much for getting back to me!

1 - when was the mortgage purchased? (this is to ascertain the rules, if any, that were in place at the time)

He was already co-owner of the property with his then partner, one year after initial purchase they split up and the property was re-mortgaged to the current policy with him as sole occupant in 2005. This was the banks recommendation having assessed the facts.

2 - what age is he when the life assurance ends?

He will be 54 years old. it ends in 2026, his mortgage end date is 2040

3 - was he originally living in the house at the point the last mortgage deal was purchased or when he bought the property?

Yes, joint ownership with his then partner.

4 - has he carried out any remortgages or product transfers since starting the mortgage (i.e buying a new deal) - like a new 2 year fixed rate?

No, not since the start date of this current mortgage deal which started 1st Nov 2006

The time bar is a 3 & 6 year rule. 6 years from the initial sale or 3 years from being reasonably aware of an issue. Given the high level of information supplied at the outset of the mortgage and the use of conveyancers that usually go through the details and risks with the borrower, it would likely be that 6 years from the sale would be timebar.

- The mortgage was done completely over the phone, he did not have anyone go through the risks, he did not receive any alternatives to choose from, the bank recommended this mortgage to him, he also not see evidence of the valuation, he went to a branch only to sign and to sadly being young and having just split with his girlfriend and recently lost his Father he did not query anything further - and unfortunately just signed. I married him in 2018 and that being a time when i fist had access to his financial info. I spent a few years trying to consult direct with bank with no luck (they did not even have a file on him to share) then a pause for lockdown, then finally did a SARS request in 2022 which we received last month, this being the first time we noticed an issue and being where i feel we have timebar of three months to bring our issues.

it seems unlikely that someone would think that a term assurance would act as a repayment vehicle. Nothing in any of the paperwork would suggest it di and with a bit of common sense, you could surely see the monthly premium was not even close to being realistic in doing that. He has had x number of years seeing the statements where the amount borrowed doesn't go down. And each statement for over a decade would have a warning about ensuring you can repay it. And not once in those years has he had an investment statement telling him what it is worth. It is a bit of a stretch to persuade a complaints handler that he thought an investment vehicle was in place.

- Agreed. I could not believe myself that my Husband had thought this mortgage would be protected (as in paid) at the end of the term. He signed away foolishly while in a bad personal situation and didnt get the right service in my opinion. He was not given an array of mortgages to choose from, the bank advised and recommended that this was the one for him. In terms of statements and correspondence there has been nothing, a recent letter from the banks complaints handler said he was sent a statement in 2016 (which he doesn't have a copy of) However that was 6 years ago!! Plus I am confused as the SARs request shows that there hast been anything else sent since 2006. Also on his 'welcome to your offset mortgage' document, under the payment info is this statement ''And if we ever need to change your monthly payment - to ensure your borrowings are repaid by November 2040 - we’ll give you at least 5 days notice'' Surly they should have been in touch by now given my Husband has continued to pay interest only so there is no way the debt will be paid by 2040. Another advisor on here also said all interest only lenders should have written to us to ask what plan is in place to repay debts within ten years of the mortgage arrangement date. Not sure if this is true but He hasnt been contacted.

I just want to add I do not take anything anyone says as negative, i really appreciate all this advice. Thanks so much!! I am also not particularly after some sort of big payout or compo by raising a complaint. I am genuinely concerned about the way this mortgage was sold, irrespective of my then young Husbands stupidity and carelessness in terms of signing documents he didn't understand. What is evident though is that there is no plan to pay this debt back and i am petrified about what is going to happen next. Thanks again for your advice

tacpot12 · 18 February at 10:22PM

Well done for asking for advice and considering everything that you have been told. I don't think you need to be petrified. There is time to clear the outstanding mortgage. You seem to be acting to make a complaint as soon as you have realised that there is a problem, and you have lots of issues that NatWest need to address. In particular, I would ask them about what letters they sent him asking him how he would repay the mortgage, and what address they were sent to. It's down to them to show that they complied with the regulator's requirements when the regulator started to get concerned about Interest-only mortgages.

So there is a small chance that a complaint might be upheld, but I doubt the FOS would expect NatWest to write the debt off. I think it more likely that they would expect that NatWest offer him favourable terms to repay the capital, e.g. zero % interest and the maximum time to pay, e.g. up to his expected retirement date. I think this is what I would be pushing for.

Mido74 · 18 February at 11:07PM

tacpot12 said:

Well done for asking for advice and considering everything that you have been told. I don't think you need to be petrified. There is time to clear the outstanding mortgage. You seem to be acting to make a complaint as soon as you have realised that there is a problem, and you have lots of issues that NatWest need to address. In particular, I would ask them about what letters they sent him asking him how he would repay the mortgage, and what address they were sent to. It's down to them to show that they complied with the regulator's requirements when the regulator started to get concerned about Interest-only mortgages.

So there is a small chance that a complaint might be upheld, but I doubt the FOS would expect NatWest to write the debt off. I think it more likely that they would expect that NatWest offer him favourable terms to repay the capital, e.g. zero % interest and the maximum time to pay, e.g. up to his expected retirement date. I think this is what I would be pushing for.

Thanks so much for your comments!
I would be delighted just to get some help from the mortgage provider to put us on the right track to be honest. I probably need professional help from a broker or similar. But feel so strongly his current lender should really offer something first. I do intend to go via the Ombudsman for further support, and i understand a complaint may not be upheld but with no help coming from the lender this is my only option. I will however take your advice and ask them to send me proof of them asking how he intends to repay, together of proof of annual statements. They said he last one was 2016!

MSE Forum

Mis-sold NatWest Offset Interest Only Mortgage - Advice needed

Replies

British Gas prepay meter users...

The 'odd Easter flavours' thread 2023

Energy Price Guarantee calculator