Bank has lied to the Financial ombudsman

Nelle40

Hello!
I have and Endowment mortgage with a well known bank. The bank has failed oi collect the sums from the policy insurers and continued to charge interest on an outstanding mortgage.

The issue is the bank claims to have "converted " my endowment mortgage to an interest only mortgage, and that they have re-assigned the policies to me backin 1991. They have made this claim to the Financial Ombudsman who as accepted their claim without checking it.  It turns out the letter to "convert" my mortgage was not to my solicitor but to a mortgage policy broker with no authority to change the mortgage. Nor have I ever signed an agreement to change my mortgage.  The policy they claim to have re-assigned to me many years ago, has actually been re-assigned back to them. AND most importantly they have claimed the money using that assignment.  I have the certificate of re-assignment to them and their letter claiming the money from the insurers!

Having claimed that money they failed to reduce my interest payments, continuing to charge money on the full original loan despite receiving 40% ofthe loaed funds! The FOS failed to note this thievery.

My question is: They have clearly lied to the Financial ombudsman, who has on the basis of that lie, judged against me.  

Is there anything I can do about this?

Is this fraud? To lie to the Ombudsman to gain advantage?

As it is an endowment mortgage with the faulty judgement from the FOS in 2019-2022  I believe I am timed out from claiming in court. 

Does anyone here have a view to how to proceed. Do I just give up and accept their fraudulent lies. Please note: I have all the original documents to prove this, it is not hearsay. 

I would so appreciate some guidance in this matter.  I would really like to get my deeds back & the excess interest and payments I have made over the years.

Many thanks in advance!

DullGreyGuy

The first decision from the FOS comes from an Adjudicator or Investigator. Once they have come to their decision you are given the option of accepting it or rejecting it. 

As you arent happy with the decision then you should reject it and give the grounds why you are. It will then go into a queue to be reviewed by an Ombudsman. 

If you have already been through that 2nd stage review and got to the same conclusion then your only remaining option is the courts. All decisions by an Ombudsman are published on their website, if you post your case reference it'll make it easier to understand why the Ombudsman has sided with the bank despite your evidence. 

Intentionally lying to the Ombudsman would have serious consequence for the company. What is much more likely is that you have no one from 1991 still around 32 years later and things have probably gone through multiple system migrations and so the case workers today have to try and understand what they mean and mistakes can be made. I know with a former client most staff thought if a "Death Benefit" field wasnt ticked meant that there wasnt one but technically that was only true for policies set up post 1998, anything before that the data wasnt back dated whent he field was created and you have to goto the paper records to see if they have it or not. 

dunstonh

The issue is the bank claims to have "converted " my endowment mortgage to an interest only mortgage, and that they have re-assigned the policies to me backin 1991.

There was no such thing as an endowment mortgage Per se.   It was an interest only mortgage with the bank and an endowment policy with the insurer.   People referred to them as an endowment mortgage for short.   So, you bank didn't actually convert your mortgage to interest only as it was always interest only.

. They have made this claim to the Financial Ombudsman who as accepted their claim without checking it.

The documentation for that would no longer exist but the computer record would record the date.   So, there is no way to check it either way but logically would be accepted at face value and it is in line with expectation.  So, no reason to doubt it.

  It turns out the letter to "convert" my mortgage was not to my solicitor but to a mortgage policy broker with no authority to change the mortgage. 

why do you think a solicitor would be involved?  Your mortgage terms were not changed.  

Everything upto this point is fluff and unimportant as it makes no difference to anything.
The assignment issue is a bit of a red herring as clerical records from the early 90s would be very poor on something like that.    

Having claimed that money they failed to reduce my interest payments, continuing to charge money on the full original loan despite receiving 40% ofthe loaed funds! The FOS failed to note this thievery.

Is it theft or a clerical error?    You haven't stated what the bank has given as a reason.

My question is: They have clearly lied to the Financial ombudsman, who has on the basis of that lie, judged against me.  
Is there anything I can do about this?

Is this fraud? To lie to the Ombudsman to gain advantage?

What is the lie/fraud you are referring to?

As it is an endowment mortgage with the faulty judgement from the FOS in 2019-2022  I believe I am timed out from claiming in court. 

Was the ruling in 2019 or 2022?

Does anyone here have a view to how to proceed. Do I just give up and accept their fraudulent lies. Please note: I have all the original documents to prove this, it is not hearsay. 

If you are referring to the assignment then its irrelevant to you issue.   Its not unexpected that records on that would be poor. Especially after banks ceased keeping records on assignments and the purge of data prior to 1994 when the DPA came in.  Some dates on old records may actually be the default date the system was introduced or a guessed date.    
However, none of that matters.  So, I am not sure why you are focusing on that.

Your complaint, as it appears to be that, a maturity was not applied to your mortgage.      Everything else is irrelevant and you are complicating the issue with pointless things.  So, what did the bank state as the reason they did not reduce your mortgage when the maturity was paid to them?

Nelle40

Thank you for being so clear!

The bank gave no reason for failing to credit the maturity.

The reason the assignment is important is because I am taxable elsewhere. When I was forced to collect the maturity funds of the 2nd policy I became taxable on its funds. Direct collection by them would have avoided this. The terms of my endowment mortgage state that I am not to do anything to stop them from receiving these monies. ie: they are responsible for collecting.

I have all the original mortgage terms & conditions, assignment certificate. So a lack of records is not an issue.

The second issue is my bank sold the original policies and those policies were guaranteed to pay out the full sum. By claiming it is an interest only mortgage (not original  endowment mortgage with its guarantees) they have avoided applying the guaranteed shortfall funds.

And yes I have the separate signed  contract where the shortfall was guaranteed.  They simply refuse to apply those funds.   To the FOS IN 2022  they stated the guarantees were out of jurisdiction as the matter was addressed in 2007 - as part oft he shortfall complaint.  Well in 2007, they were found guilty of giving the guarantee. They made a very poor offer which I did not accept. So the matter is admitted by them but not settled. 

My complaint is that one maturity was appropriated for 3 years. They took the money but continued to charge me interest on the whole original mortgage.  The second maturity they failed to collect for a further 6 years as was their contractual responsibility, continuing to charge me interest,  and causing a tax liability.

They have failed to administrate the mortgage according to the terms of the mortgage. The mortgage is an Endowment mortgage from 1988, a very weird product, but one where the bank was the agent selling the policies, guaranteeing their value  by contract, and using those policies as collateral for the mortgage.  My only responsibility was to pay the monthly premiums which I have done without fail.

Nelle40

The ruling was in 2022

Nelle40

1. Intentionally lying to the Ombudsman would have serious consequence for the company. What is much more likely is that you have no one from 1991 still around 32 years later and things have probably gone through multiple system migrations and so the case workers today have to try and understand what they mean and mistakes can be made. I know with a former client most staff thought if a "Death Benefit" field wasnt ticked meant that there wasnt one but technically that was only true for policies set up post 1998, anything before that the data wasnt back dated whent he field was created and you have to goto the paper records to see if they have it or not. 

The ombudsman have blindly accepted te banks statement without looking at the actual contractual  documentation I have provided them.

Whilst I agree that it may be a simple admin mistake, the fact is I have provided the signed contracts to prove my point. Whilst the policies have mdb - minimum death benefits, the  pre-mortgage sale of the policies - by the bank themselves - gave a signed guarantee of extra funds to pay off the mortgage. A contract signed by the bank and ourselves.