Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • No I'm not. Even if I was then comments on this forum wouldn't constitute legal advice in the formal sense. Now you've engaged a lawyer directly can I just make couple of final suggestions? Firstly make sure he is fully aware of the facts. And don't mix and match by taking his advice on one aspect while ploughing your own furrow on others.  Let us know how you get on now you have a solicitor acting for you.
    • Oil and gold prices have jumped, while shares have fallen.View the full article
    • Thank you for your reply, DX! I was not under the impression that paying it off would remove it from my file. My file is already trashed so it would make very little difference to any credit score. I am not certain if I can claim compensation for a damaged credit score though. Or for them reporting incorrect information for over 10 years? The original debt has been reported since 2013 as an EE debt even though they had sold it in 2014. It appears to be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 Section 13 and this all should have come to a head when I paid the £69 in September 2022, or so I thought. The £69 was in addition to the original outstanding balance and not sent to a DCA. Even if I had paid the full balance demanded by the DCA back in 2014 then the £69 would still have been outstanding with EE. If it turns out I have no claim then so be it. Sometimes there's not always a claim if there's blame. The CRA's will not give any reason for not removing it. They simply say it is not their information and refer me to EE. More to the point EE had my updated details since 2022 yet failed to contact me. I have been present on the electoral roll since 2012 so was traceable and I think EE have been negligent in reporting an account as in payment arrangement when in fact it had been sold to a DCA. In my mind what should have happened was the account should have been defaulted before it was closed and sold to the DCA who would then have made a new entry on my credit file with the correct details. However, a further £69 of charges were applied AFTER it was sent to the DCA and it was left open on EE systems. The account was then being reported twice. Once with EE as open with a payment arrangement for the £69 balance which has continued since 2013 and once with the DCA who reported it as defaulted in 2014 and it subsequently dropped off and was written off by the DCA, LOWELL in 2021. I am quite happy for EE to place a closed account on my credit file, marked as satisfied. However, it is clear to me that them reporting an open account with payment arrangement when the balance is £0 and the original debt has been written off is incorrect? Am I wrong?
    • OMG! I Know! .... someone here with a chance to sue Highview for breach of GDPR with a very good chance of winning, I was excited reading it especially after all the work put in by site members and thinking he could hammer them for £££'s and then, the OP disappeared half way through. Although you never know the reason so all I can say is I hope the OP is alive and well regardless. I'd relish the chance to do them for that if they breached my GDPR.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Pre-2004 Mortgage - MPPI/Life Insurance - Several Bank Failings - Widowed Mother


jma90
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1884 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Good Morning,

 

I'm seeking some advice/direction from you for my mother following my fathers death in 2014. Her mortgage started in 2002 and was called a Natwest Foundations Mortgage, it was effectively an arranged credit line that allowed you to borrow up to the value of the property and pay off extra amounts when suited. Natwest withdrew this product and started locking peoples money in, there was widespread complaint online about this. At this time from research, many customers moved to other products offered by the bank however my father insisted he was staying on the product. Still to this day that mortgage is in place, it reached the 14 year term in 2015 and has rolled on a SVR extension for 3.5 years...

 

I have drafted for my mother with her consent, the issues that she has with her mortgage. Some advice and direction would be greatly appreciated.

 

Issue 1 - Natwest Payment Protector sold as Life Insurance with Mortgage

Foundations Mortgage Account taken in 2002 – This was done 100% at home by an Natwest advisor called XXXXXX XXXXX. We have hand written letters that were included in the SAR that show this. Natwest say that they have no records to indicate he ever worked within the company. I feel this is crucial to my complaint as XXXXX XXXXX completed the mortgage with myself and husband at home and advised us on everything. We were advised we had to take a life insurance product called ‘Natwest Payment Protector’ in order for the mortgage to go ahead.

 

From the beginning of the mortgage up until my husband’s death in July 2014, we were led to believe that the Natwest Payment Protector was Life Insurance on the house. It is proven that this is what we believed as when my husband had his first heart attack in May 2008, he contacted Natwest to try and freeze the account. At no point did he use the Natwest Payment Protector whilst sick, which is apparently what it was for! We both were led to believe this was Life Insurance. At this point, I am upset that Natwest did not inform us what this product actually did - If they had, it would have covered the payments whilst he was sick and also would have made us aware of the product they had mis-sold at a time when we could have done something about it. This has had a huge financial effect on myself.

 

Natwest have produced after many letters to the bank, a document with my husbands signature agreeing to the costs and benefit of the NatWest Payment Protector… This was not signed by myself nor do I believe my husband signed this understanding what it was he was signing – I stress, the Natwest advisor forcibly made us take this product as part of the ‘deal’ and this product was ‘Life Insurance.’

 

 

Issue 2 - Failing to supply information under SAR

My initial SAR request was handled carelessly and was to say the least, incomplete. It was missing huge amounts of information and the majority of what was sent was not legible.

I complained about this and specifically requested it to be resent as well as information pertinent to the mortgage to be sent. Following this second request – there is still clearly information missing.

 

 

Issue 3 - The original mortgage agreement/contract and terms and conditions

Despite two subject access requests being submitted a Natwest complaints handler has informed me that – quote ‘A further search has been completed by the Mortgage Operations Centre and they have been unable to locate a copy of your original mortgage offer’. I find this un-acceptable and ask on what grounds this mortgage is enforceable under the CCA between 2006 and 2016?

 

Further to this, despite two subject access requests and specifically asking via letter to the Chief Exec’s office on more than one occasion Natwest have failed to supply the original ‘Terms & Conditions’ of the mortgage. Nor have I been supplied a reason as to why these are not available. In fact, since asking for this information shortly after my husband passed away in July 2014 I have not seen any paperwork produced by Natwest that form an ‘agreed mortgage contract’ nor an ‘agreed credit arrangement’.

 

 

Issue 4 - Status of mortgage agreement during the years 2002 to 2018 leading to issues surrounding compliance of the CCA in 2006 and FCA Regulations at the ‘supposed’ end of term.

My understanding from recent research is that this mortgage is a pre-2004 First Charge Mortgage that was unregulated when put in to place in 2002.

 

2002 – 2006 Between these years the mortgage should have complied with the CCA, however from research it seems like the £25,000 barrier stops this from being required… In the Natwest supplied SAR upon opening the loan, I find it very convenient that there is a column entitled CCA (Consumer Credit Act) – marked with ‘NO’. I would like this explained to me as the bank deemed this important information to record however I was never informed of a regulatory body nor law that would be/become important… Is this a fair relationship?

 

2006-2016 Between these years the CCA was amended significantly and as this loan is a pre-2004 first charge mortgage, from my understanding it was subject to compliance with the CCA between 30th March 2006 and 21st March 2016 when the mortgage becomes regulated by the FCA – see PS17/6. During this period, several compliance failings occurred however two of which I feel are significantly important:

Failure to send NOSIA – At no point was a specified notice of sums in arrears sent, by trawling through statements I can see that this should have happened several times. The first of which took within the 2006 onwards period is May 2008. Failure to do this would make the agreement 'unenforceable' until notice is given.

Failure to send Annual Statements – None sent. Failure to do this would make the agreement 'unenforceable' until notice is given.

During this period of time, my husband had passed away and I was completely unaware that the bank had these obligations to me. Further to this, I made several complaints via telephone and in branch as I didn’t even have access to my mortgage account online. Furthermore – I still don’t have access to this online now! (August 2018)

 

Issue 5 - Product Extension Concerns

June 2015 – August 2018 (Taking into account FCA Regulations enforced on 21st March 2016)

It is my understanding that the verbally agreed extensions following the ‘supposed’ end of term mortgage are subject to the rules and regulations of the FCA now. This loan extension and all monies paid on this ‘extension’ should have been a ‘Regulated Mortgage Contract’ and there should be certain paperwork in place, such as a Loan Contract, Terms & Conditions, Key Facts, Annual Statements etc. There have been serious failings by the bank to comply with FCA regulations during this period.

 

-----------------------------------

 

Thank you for any advice and direction in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and Welcome to CAG

 

Most mortgages were unregulated and not covered by the CCA1974

MCOB applies to regulated mortgage contracts

 

Some useful links :-

 

http://www.slaughterandmay.com/media/760154/consumer_credit_act_2006_amendments_to_the_consumer_credit_act_1974.pdf

 

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2009/jun/28/natwest-mortgage-insurance

 

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/may/05/homebuyers-shun-mortgage-protection

 

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/MCOB/1/6.html

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-1593906/Loophole-puts-borrowers-at-risk.html

 

I cant find any information with regards Natwest Payment Protector sold as Life Insurance with Mortgage...the product was withdrawn...apart from one version sold to sole traders (Business)

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

No....I dont think it was retrospective.

 

 

In November 2015 the Government made legislation which means the administration of and other activities relating to pre-2004 first charge CCA mortgages will become regulated mortgage activities from 21 March 2016. Mortgage regulation under the Financial Services andMarkets Act 2000 (FSMA) began on 31 October 2004.

 

Mortgages entered into before that date are regulated under the CCA and CONC, provided that they did not exceed the financial

threshold in place when they were entered into. This threshold was:

 

• £25,000 between 1 May 1998 and 31 October 2004

• £15,000 between 20 May 1985 and 1 May 1998

• £5,000 before 20 May 1985

 

The legislation will mean that the CCA will no longer generally apply to these loans. In CP15/36 we consulted on applying our existing mortgage regime to these loans in the same way as it applies to firms in relation to other regulated mortgage contracts, with some limited modifications or exceptions.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Andy,

 

So I am correct that from 21st March 2016, were bound by the rules of the FCA's MCOBS for this existing mortgage?

 

Surely before this date they must have had some kind of law/act that covered at least some of their responsibilities?

 

What do you make of the fact they cannot find the original mortgage offer or terms and conditions?

 

Thanks Again

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your initial post is quite intensive and covering 3 main concerns.....

 

Mortgage protection policy

Data protection

Mortgage agreement (Unregulated) unfairness.

 

As regards to them not being able to find the offer or the agreement and T&Cs...well the same could be said of yourself.....I have copies of every mortgage I have entered into in my files.

 

What do you wish to achieve and what is your main requirement. Simplify your complaint and deal with one issue per stage.

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this is it! What is my best route of attack with this. Realistically my mother feels that the ppi policy masked as life insurance should have relinquished her mortgage...

 

Secondly, the mortgage agreement itself - it doesn't strike me that it is fair.

 

Joe

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then the MPPI is the priority and you should report this to the FOS/FCA

 

As for the agreement...I assume a 25 years agreement...whether its fair or unfair its irrelevant to your problem.?

 

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Hi Andy,

 

Sorry for not coming back to you sooner. We battle on.

 

This was an unusual product and the bank started 'buying people' out of their mortgages and moving them to different products... Screams alarm bells to me. I have found the original T&C of this mortgage - would you be able to look at this and see if there is anything we can use in this fight?

Foundations Terms & Conditions.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you sent a D SAR to NW to see what data they hold in connection to this Mortgage ?

 

May be of interest re Mortgage Regulation pre MCOBS

 

https://www.cml.org.uk/policy/policy-updates/all/the-evolution-of-mortgage-regulation/

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...