Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »
I took a ten year fixed rate out at 4.6% in 2004, knowing that the interest rate might go up, and it might go down, and that if it went down, I'd be paying more than people who did not take a fixed rate, and vice versa.
Isn't that the point ?
jonesoswestry wrote: »
I say that is not relevant because it is just one scenario of many but you never stated whether you were in any agreement with me but came up with an option and a prediction I was better off as I was, which was wrong.
Coming back with the same response time and again is getting us nowhere, where did I say the mortgage advisor sold me my statement was
'overpaid mortgage advisers telling us that endowments were the way to go'
Unless you are misreading telling for selling.
I can only tell you what happened when we went for advice on our mortgage in 1993. and I don't recall you being there.
We were advised that our best option was an endowment. This was based on the the same facts that everybody else who have had payouts for mis-selling was obviously told.
They arranged the endowment and they would have received the commission as we did not pay any money for this advice.
Again you still fail to tell me how else they get paid.
Do you believe that Martin Lewis is incorrect in his statement I gave you before?
The FOS are already looking into the claim and may or may not agree, if it fell outside their remit they would have said at the start as I have discussed this over the phone.
JimmyTheWig wrote: »
Yes it is just one scenario of many. But I feel that it is a likely scenario that you would have gone for if you had realised at the time that the 10 year fix wasn't what you'd wanted.
What do you think you would have gone for in hindsight?
Ok, so my guess was a little out. But a 5 year fix at 3.0% with fees less than £600 might not be likely. At 3.6% with no fees you'd be breaking even.
My point is that while it looks like you are on a really high rate, you haven't done that badly overall.
If your complaint is upheld then you will be put in the position that you would have been had you not been mis-sold to. That's why I think it is relevant to look at the difference in cost between what you got and what you wuold have had.
kingstreet wrote: »
Surely, the question here is could the banks have foreseen the effects of the credit crunch?
It's quite possible that even if you saw it coming in August 2007, it would have seemed that a ten year fix was a splendid idea, as it was entirely possible that higher rates would follow, not lower rates.
That's exactly the kind of uncertainty that fixed rates of that duration are perfect to meet.
dunstonh wrote: »
Once the adjudicator looks at it, they will check if it is a complaint they can deal with or not.
somethingcorporate wrote: »
I think you are trying to connect two unconnected issues here.
1) The rate: Just using your logic, had the rates gone up to 10% would you be happy with the bank knocking on your door asking to increase your rate? You knew what you were signing up to and the fact an unpredicted series of events led to historically low rates you feel hard done by. This was the risk you took on with taking a fixed, had you wanted to benefit from low rates you should have taken a tracker.
2) The banks conduct: OK, you, me and the whole world abhor how the banks and bankers behaved and continue to behave and far too few punishments have been handed out. It's a fair shout and every tax payer has a right to feel aggrieved at how toothless the government and global community has been to blunt the impact of this wreckless bunch of fools we have at the helm of banks being paid millions for abject failure.
These two events are not connected. Feel angry with yourself for the first and the banks for the second but in no material way are they related.
How to make yours spendable again
Lower your band & save £1,000s
Including year's 2for1 movies for £1