Sister penalised for estranged husbands Amigo loan-can she resurrect her Ombudsman complaint?

Peterpan18

Will try to keep this post as brief as possible, but its complicated....
Some years ago my sister married a man who we now know is a prolific con artist and scammer.
Soon after getting married he persuaded her to re mortgage her house (that she had solely owned for the previous 7 years) to financially support his business, that subsequently failed. Both names were then put on the mortgage (an interest only one) as well as both names on the house deeds.
At about the same time he purchased an expensive 4x4 on HP and persuaded her to sign as guarantor for the loan. Some time after leaving this was found burnt out in a field and the HP company came after her for the outstanding balance. I think we have resolved this issue now.
The marriage only lasted about 18 months before he left the marriage and moved out, then in 2016 (four years + later) Amigo loans served her with a summons to place a £5,000 second charge on her house. This was as a result of a loan her estranged husband had taken out with them, this time using his mother as guarantor, and he had defaulted on. We cannot be sure his mother was still alive at the time.
It was at this time sister turned to me for help and told me everything that had been going on.
I also discovered that her estranged husband had three mobile phone and two bank accounts registered at her address. I quickly dealt with these by writing to the banks and phone providers informing them of the situation, we heard no more from them..

We attended the court hearing and the Judge requested a copy of the TR1. At a second hearing despite our protests, the Judge ruled that as his name was on the TR1 (deeds), the debt would be lodged against her house. We corresponded with Amigo about the situation and also raised a complaint with the ombudsman. We suggested that the loan had been obtained by fraudulent means and insufficient/poor or no credit checks had been carried out on Mr B or his guarantor. as we were very aware of his extensive poor credit history, the file is extensive. The ombudsman would not take any action and Amigo eventually "blanked" us. So at the age of 55, as she was then, we had to accept there was nothing we could do to have the charge removed.

Moving forward to today, 23rd March 2023 I have seen an article on the BBC about Amigo being sanctioned by regulators for "insufficient affordability checks". Exactly what we told the Ombudsman in the complaint we made is 2016.
As my sister was not the borrower and had no knowledge of this loan (taken out by her husband after he left the marriage & using another address) can we go back to the ombudsman with a second complaint. Sister only requires one thing, the second charge removed from her property.
Sister is now 62, disabled, has divorced the husband and his name is no longer on the deeds. This took us over 2 years to complete.
She is soon to sell the house due to her disability and will have to move north to find cheaper property she can afford from any remaining equity from her house. The removal of this £5,000 charge would go a long way to helping her.

Caz3121

It looks like the date has passed for submitting any claim through the redress scheme - although I suspect it should probably have been the ex that would have submitted as he was the borrower
https://www.amigoscheme.co.uk/

kaMelo

Whilst I'm sure the details you have included are important to both yourself and your sister it doesn't actually add anything to what you're trying to achieve. Any complaint about unaffordable lending  etc would have to be made by either the borrower or guarantor.  As your sister was neither a borrower nor guarantor I don't see what complaint she can have against Amigo. 


Your sister and her then husband were joint owners of a property, he was named on both the mortgage and deeds. He took out a loan which defaulted, in pursuing the debt the lender secured a restriction against his share of the property. As a jointly owned property it couldn't have been a full charge.

Read this thread, 
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1839539/charging-order-the-myth#latest

If the property is still jointly owned then a sale can still take place and the debt is then a matter for her ex husband and Amigo. If he has been removed from the deeds, how did that happen with the restriction in place?

DullGreyGuy

Peterpan18 said:

Moving forward to today, 23rd March 2022 

You mean 2023?

The article today, in 2023, isnt about the FCA's decision that Amigo didn't make appropriate checks but the fact the company is winding up and so people wont get what they were due. The FCA however has ruled on loans since 2018 and yet you mention the summons being issued in 2016 for the loan which would put it before the period. 

Regulations change over time, for many years regulations have become harsher/ more nanny state. The Brexiters have promised to roll many of these back any make consumers more accountable for their decisions. I am not an expert on lending rules but the fact the loan got to the situation of summons 2 years before the regulator says bad loans were being offered strongly suggests that at the time the loans were taken they were within the legislation of the time.  

Peterpan18

kaMelo said:

Whilst I'm sure the details you have included are important to both yourself and your sister it doesn't actually add anything to what you're trying to achieve. Any complaint about unaffordable lending  etc would have to be made by either the borrower or guarantor.  As your sister was neither a borrower nor guarantor I don't see what complaint she can have against Amigo. 


Your sister and her then husband were joint owners of a property, he was named on both the mortgage and deeds. He took out a loan which defaulted, in pursuing the debt the lender secured a restriction against his share of the property. As a jointly owned property it couldn't have been a full charge.

Read this thread, 
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1839539/charging-order-the-myth#latest

If the property is still jointly owned then a sale can still take place and the debt is then a matter for her ex husband and Amigo. If he has been removed from the deeds, how did that happen with the restriction in place?

I think the last sentence says what we wanted to achieve it was hoped that due to the issues mentioned before we could attempt to have the charge removed. From the replies, there seems no chance of that happening, sadly.

Amigo, after a lot of pressure, took on board the reason for having his name removed and with the ex's permission the deeds were put back into one name. However the Mortgage has had to remain in both names.
It was extremely necessary to have his name removed from the deeds otherwise there is nothing to stop this happening again and again until sister has no equity in her house and he has got off scott free!. His history would suggest that there was a very strong possibility this could happen again.

Peterpan18

DullGreyGuy said:

Peterpan18 said:

Moving forward to today, 23rd March 2022 

You mean 2023?

The article today, in 2023, isnt about the FCA's decision that Amigo didn't make appropriate checks but the fact the company is winding up and so people wont get what they were due. The FCA however has ruled on loans since 2018 and yet you mention the summons being issued in 2016 for the loan which would put it before the period. 

Regulations change over time, for many years regulations have become harsher/ more nanny state. The Brexiters have promised to roll many of these back any make consumers more accountable for their decisions. I am not an expert on lending rules but the fact the loan got to the situation of summons 2 years before the regulator says bad loans were being offered strongly suggests that at the time the loans were taken they were within the legislation of the time.  

Whoops, yes sorry meant 2023.
After posting I did more research and sadly came to the same conclusion. The whole situation seems to revolve around a computer system they put in place to do automated credit checks in 2018 or thereabouts and was found not fit for purpose.
I am furious that he took advantage of my sisters kind and gullible nature during their 15 months of marriage. She has done nothing wrong other than trust her husband that was, and still is, a scamming conman, who since 2009 has cost her financially and mentally oh for 20/20 hindsight.

sourcrates

Your sister has been a victim of the fallout from another`s actions.

Have you looked at the link to the charging order thread (above) ?

Speak to the Land Registry, issues over restriction`s, can be resolved.

Peterpan18

sourcrates said:

Your sister has been a victim of the fallout from another`s actions.

Have you looked at the link to the charging order thread (above) ?

Speak to the Land Registry, issues over restriction`s, can be resolved.

I have deleted my earlier post after more research.
sourcrates thank you for pointing me in the right direction.
Yes as the thread says there is a restriction on the house documents and with the information the thread has provided I have strong hopes sister will not have to settle ex husbands debt.

She wants to sell up and move so I have given her some of the information from the thread and told her to discuss and explain to her solicitor the situation before engaging them to handle the sale, in order to make sure they will do everything to avoid her having to pay her ex's restriction debt.

If all goes well the debt will end up back with him, will be quite a shock after almost 7 years of thinking he has got away with it.
At last some hope for both of us, thank you again.