FOS are pulling a fast one IMO. When they say they are "investigating if the underwriter may have any liability" all they will actually do is write to the underwriter saying "we would like you to investigate whether you may have any liability for the way the broker sold the policy" (or words to that effect). Even this is exceeding their brief by a considerable distance - they are supposed to be an independent service to resolve disputes that customers and companies can't resolve between them. They should not be trying to pin complaints that are outside their jurisdiction on companies who weren't directly involved in the matters. However, in practice if the underwriter says "sorry mate we didn't sell it, end of" then there's not much more they can do. I have heard of cases where an underwriter has made an offer of recompense even where they didn't sell the policy, to customers who were blatantly ineligible or had serious pre-existing and chronic conditions. However, I have yet to hear of one where FOS have actually considered themselves to have jurisdiction and actively ruled against an underwriter for a policy someone else has sold. Such a ruling would almost certainly be open to legal challenge in any event (whilst respondent companies generally cannot challenge FOS decisions in court there is an exception where it relates to a point of law). As stated above, the burden of proof in a court case would be on you as the complainant. Plus unlike the FOS you could be held liable for costs if you lose. Whether its worth it depends on your reasons and whether you have any evidence. He said/she said is unlikely to get very far on this one.

This sounds like a very odd set of circumstances. The first stage of the FOS process is usually that your case gets looked at by an adjudicator. Even this usually takes at least six months at the moment. You would then get a written assessment of the outcome that would state whether they recommend the complaint be upheld or not. I would call them and ask has an adjudicator actually made a decision in the case or not? If they have then you should be supplied with a copy of it setting out the reasons. Once the adjudicator has made a decision then the parties can either accept it, or if either is still dissatisfied ask for it to be referred to an Ombudsman. This usually takes many more months and once an Ombudsman makes a decision it is final and the procedure has been exhausted. So if your case had been adjudicated and then overturned that would normally be final. It sounds to me like they have probably appealed it and it is waiting for an Ombudsman to review it. But you need to clarify exactly what stage of the process it is at. As regards the comment about the levy on the banks, this is something they are legally obliged to pay. It is not something they have control over and hence they cannot refuse to pay it in order to exert influence over FOS. Most of the big banks have an uphold rate substantially over 50% at FOS. The unfortunate fact is that someone has to pay for the FOS and if not the banks then the only option would probably be a "loser pays" system similar to the courts. Which would then be open to the criticism that it is unfair to complainants who can't afford to take on companies who have much deeper pockets.

The problem with the first point is that whilst it may be true, I can guarantee you that your loan agreement would have mentioned it somewhere. I don't know if you've still got a copy (doubt it if the loan is closed, not many people would have) but if so I'd have a look. If by any chance it doesn't then your complaint (along with those of any other party who had a similar loan) ought to be automatically upheld without the need to contact you. As regards the other cover, it really depends on whether the sale was carried out on an advised or non advised basis, if it was advised then they have to make sure the policy is suitable for you and if it isn't then it ought to be upheld. If non advised then they only have to provide info on what it is and what it covers and are not responsible for suitability of the product. Though it might sound like a contradiction in terms to be an advised sale when you have said you weren't aware of the product, I don't think they'd bother asking you about other cover if it wasn't considered to be of relevance to the investigation. So just answer as fully as you can and if your answers give fair grounds it will be upheld. If you want to answer in writing then make clear to them that you want to look into the issues more rather than attempt to answer off the cuff. If you answer by phone (which it looks like you have done) and you forget anything of relevance you can always contact them back to add it. If it doesn't go your way and you are still convinced you have a case there's always FOS.

Not my intention to start a general discussion at all. I'm just trying to explain to the OP with reference to the original post why following the suggested course of action is the last thing he should be doing. Leaving aside the tub thumping and the conspiracy theories, the bottom line is that the complaint handler is an individual who is going to ultimately be deciding whether to uphold the OP's case. If the OP has a valid and provable case then it will be upheld (though if this was the case they probably wouldn't bother to ring at all, just make an offer and move onto the next one). If not, and it comes down to an issue of credibility and believability then turning round and saying I don't want to talk to you" to the person trying to investigate the complaint will give all the reason they need to reject it. If you're a bank complaint handler with deadlines and targeta to meet trying to contact someone to gain a better understanding and they turn round and say (in effect) "I wot talk to you even though you've called me to try and resolve the complaint I made" are you going to be predisposed towards being sympathetic to that person? Up to the OP what he/she does but I'd advocate making an attempt to be seen as honest and trustworthy.

Depends on the outcome of the call. If they're satisfied you have valid grounds for complaint it'll be upheld. If they don't think you have it'll be rejected. If they're not sure then they'll probably reject but offer you the opportunity to provide further evidence/info if you think there's anything of any relevance they should consider. As the person making an allegation of wrongdoing, the burden of proof in the matter is with you, so you will need to convince the handler that you have genuine grounds for complaint. Best way to do this is to be truthful and up front. What were your reasons for complaint anyway?

You say that like it's a bad thing. They're actually doing what they are supposed to and really investigating the circumstances surrounding the sale. A recognised part of good customer complaint handling is conversing with the customer and gaining a real first hand understanding of their concerns. It's also a part that's been neglected for too long during the whole PPI saga. Refusing to speak to them is far more likely to result in your complaint being rejected. Reason #1 they have targets and deadlines to meet and rather than get into long drawn out correspondence will just reject it and tell you that if you have any other evidence they'll look at it again. Reason 2 as a complaint handler you would expect that a customer who genuinely feels they have been mistreated would welcome a complaint handler contacting them to talk through their concerns. Bearing in mind the number of try-it-on complainants now jumping on the bandwagon, if the complainant refuses to speak with them, they are not unreasonably going to wonder what the person has to hide.

Doesn't always necessarily figure. Keep in mind that the complaint centres around being sold an interest only rather than a repayment mortgage. So buildings insurance would still have been a legal requirement whatever type of mortgage was taken. Life cover, if the OP had dependants, would still have been needed, the only difference being that a decreasing term policy could have been taken rather than an endowment policy with life cover built in. And if the customer had a requirement for PPI with the interest only mortgage then it would have been as much a requirement for a repayment one, only the level of cover would change. I know the general consensus on this forum is that PPI can't possibly ever have been sold fairly or required, but the truth is its a useful product in the right circumstances, especially when protecting the roof over your head.

You're able to put in a complaint by all means. But the reason given is weak simply because, whilst it might be true, it is also a very diffficult thing to prove. As regards redundancy pay, whilst I stand to be corrected, I would doubt very much that this was actually a contractual entitlement. It's very rare that it would be. Usually, all he would be contractually entitled to is statutory redundancy which is (or would have been at the time) one week for every year you;ve worked there up to a maximum of 12 weeks.

Don't get confused and start applying PPI related rules to different scenarios. These are two very different beasts. The general position where a complaint regarding the sale of an interest only mortgage is upheld is that the borrower should be put back in the same position they would have been had they been sold a repayment one. This generally assumes that the payments made towards the repayment vehicle (i.e. the endowment assurance policy) would instead have been put towards repayment of the capital on the mortgage. The difference between the value of the endowment and what would have been paid off the capital of the mortgage is basically the compensation entitlement. You don't get refunded the money paid into the endowment separately, as it is still of some use and is taken into account in the calculation of the compensation offer. When a complaint is upheld, the borrower should be put back in the same position they would have been had the events never taken place, i.e. had the customer been sold a repayment mortgage. Because this would mean the balance on his current mortgage would have been lower, they are entitled to take the money from the balance of it. It does not need to be paid to him. This is not a case of setting off a refund against arrears as would be the case with PPI redress. That's not to say that he can't ask. But whether it will get anywhere probably depends on how satisfied they are that he has legitimate means in place to actually repay the mortgage.

It could just be my reading of it, but I don't think the OP mentioned PPI. The "assurance policy" referenced sounds like an endowment life assurance policy. More of which later...

No, this isn't right in general terms. The criteria for a complaint being timebarred are that it has to be 1) over 6 years from the event being complained about; and 2) over 3 years since you knew, or ought to have known, that you have grounds for complaint. The second criteria tends to be the more important one as if the provider is going to timebar your complaint, the onus falls on them to show that you should have been aware of your grounds for complaint over 3 years ago. FOS will not generally accept the "publicity" argument, the proof needs to be case specific and it is very hard to prove this, hence why you don't often see cases timebarred. One thing that is acceptable to start the clock running a personalised letter advising customers that they may have been impacted by sales failings (hence why so many providers are currently doing exactly this to start the clock running). But that's not likely to be a factor for a couple of years. One thing you need to do is ensure you get your facts straight before jumping in head first. It's not generally that as a self employed person you wouldn't be covered by PPI. Some policies do cover the self employed virtually fully, some cover with conditions of varying degrees of severity and some don't cover at all. Before you go making any complaint you need to ascertain what the situation is with your policy(s).

This one was pre- regulation but if they were signed up to the voluntary mortgage code the. FOS should still consider it. I wouldn't recommend court action, you'll probably lose and have to pay costs. FOS is the way to go.

I believe it is up to six years. So you may be due even more. Can anyone advise who you write/speak to at the Halifax to get the total of your charges sent out?