Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
    • Please provide advice on the following situation: I rented out my property to four students for 16 months until March 2024. Initially, the property was in very good condition, but now it needs extensive renovation. This includes redoing the bathroom, replacing the kitchen, removing wallpaper, and redecorating due to significant mold growth. The tenants also left their furniture on the grass, which is owned by the local authority. As a landlord, I've met all legal requirements. It seems the damage was caused by poor ventilation—windows were always closed, and heating wasn't used. There was also a bathroom leak fixed by reapplying silicone. I tried to claim insurance, but it was denied, citing tenant behavior as the cause by looking at the photos, which isn't covered. The deposit barely covers the repair costs, or else I'll have to pursue money claims, which I've never done before and am unsure about its legal complications or costs. Any thoughts on this?
    • The part in question was bought direct from Hotpoint (to replace a burnt door interlock and melted wiring). I'm unsure of the original retailer the machine was bought from, we're talking 5 years+ ago, but I can find out if absolutely necessary. It's one of the models that was listed on the recall list, but Hotpoint have stated for many years it wasn't an affected unit when given the serial number - I expect this is why they offered a FoC engineer visit because I sent them pictures of the (new ) burned door interlock.
  • 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
      • 160 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

PPI compensation offset interest mortgage


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3927 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

Help urgently wanted

 

finally got a letter from rbs admitting fault for miss-selling a mortgage 12 years ago

 

but they will not pay for the assurance policy that went with it as they understand that it was unsuitable for my stated needs but that I agreed so that's that.

 

They are offering compensation for the mortgage which I paid for 7 years before discovering it was massively under performing and would not repay the loan.

 

The big problem is that I am in financial hardship because of severe disability and illness.

 

I am currently paying interest only on my mortgage.

 

They have suggested that they will take the compensation from my existing mortgage which I took out 5 years ago.

I am not in arrears and have never missed a payment but bank with them again not owing them any money.

 

I need to know any grounds for asking for the money to be paid to me rather than taken off my current interest only mortgage.

 

I realise of course it would be great to owe less for the future but the facts are that I feel this was money I lost at the time

as I had to start from an endowment to a completely new mortgage.

 

My future may mean moving house at which point it will be to down size and I am still in positive equity if sold it would be repaid fully with sums towards my new home.

 

I would be very grateful if anyone could advise of whether the bank can treat my interest only mortgage as a debt in this instance.

 

I realise it is in a true sense but in the current situation do I have grounds for asking for this sum to be paid when I need it most.

 

Ironically I was a high tax payer so did not miss this at the time but it seems very bad that I need it to just survive

and now find it could be paid in effect for future mortgage payments .

 

I don't know how to overcome this repayment to future mortgage payments on my interest only mortgage

on what grounds or challenge them over the assurance policy that went with it which they admit was in fact wrong for my stated and documented needs

but say I agreed even upon realising this but it was more than a year into the policy when I found out about exclusions that did not meet my needs

and by this time I had already taken out the mortgage and was not offered an alternative.

 

I am pretty desperate as I cannot find any posts or information as to if repayment mortgages are seen as debts to RBS

and since I am not behind or in default and have never been can I ask for this to be paid despite having a mortage with them in force.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

as far as I am aware they cannot offset any of it unless you are in NOTIFIED arrears.

 

as for the PPI, that's prob a speculative letter, to put you off

 

i'e 'our processes were correct' so we wont refund the PPI?

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest that you write to them and tell them that this compensation is yours and you want the money paying into your bank account or a cheque. Add that although you accepted the insurance, this was because of advice from RBS, you weren't informed it was unsuitable, or that you could get it elsewhere (I assume), so you want that back with contractual interest so that you are back to the position that you would have been had it not been missold to you.

 

You could explain that you require it to be paid directly to you because of hardship and as it's your money wish to use it according to your own needs and criteria and not theirs.

 

See how that goes.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with posters above - they can only offset any refund if you are in arrears and only to cover those arrears. If you are not, then the money is yours and you want it back. Pronto !!

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

as far as I am aware they cannot offset any of it unless you are in NOTIFIED arrears.

 

as for the PPI, that's prob a speculative letter, to put you off

 

i'e 'our processes were correct' so we wont refund the PPI?

 

dx

 

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...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with posters above - they can only offset any refund if you are in arrears and only to cover those arrears. If you are not, then the money is yours and you want it back. Pronto !!

 

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the posts and great advice

I will write as advised and instruct them to pay me the mis sold endowment mortgage of £5k .

 

With regard to the assurance sold alongside of it the situation was I was single divorced with children

working full time and was told this was part of my mortgage no alternative

as it formed the offer and it was my first mortgage and I am female.

 

I explained and it was noted in their notes that disability cover was my number one concern

since I had been in a car accident some years before but was fine otherwise.

 

The interviewer did not tell me I could seek out other policies and assured me I would be covered for disability

as this of course was my worry in terms of mortage repayments in case I had any subsequent accident .

 

He did not ask about my pre existing condition nor contact the assurance provider.

 

He basically said sign or no first home or mortgage.

 

More than a year later I recieved a letter saying the disability element was not now going to be included.

 

I wrote to the bank asking why as it said due to my health .

 

I wrote to ask what this meant months later it transpired that it was a reference to my old car accident whiplash .

 

I told the bank verbally that I was not happy as this was important to me

and now rendered my cover useless and meant I had paid for nothing

as I think a premium for disability cover was added at the time.

 

We went back and forth and finally under dueress I signed a form accepting that I would accept the cover

as I was given a strict deadline and told that no singing meant no mortage as it would be revolved.

 

Since I was single and working full time it took me some time before I found out that I could in fact shop around

 

I then cancelled this assurance but continued with the endowment mortgage for a few years later

before finding out that it was a bad product and would require a lot more investment

at which point I changed to a repayment mortgage .

 

They say since I signed I accepted an unsuitable product which is true but only

because at this point I had no idea that I could find another provider

and as it turned out it was not a condition of the mis sold mortage.

 

I feel it demonstrates further that they mis sold me unsuitable products,

they should have made clear I had an alternative,

checked at least when I purchased it would cover me.

 

Iron ally I found out I had a brain tumour estimated to have been there when my policy was in force

but not found at the time.

 

In the event it had been I would have been without cover or means to keep a roof over my head if alive as it was before surgery

 

.i also felt a year to tell me I was not covered was not timely and it was not fair to tell me to sign

or be without a home or mortgage cover again I was not offered an alternative

and was amazed when I finally found out this assurance was not in fact part of my mortgage

but was optional in terms of their provision.

 

I realise I may think I'm right but be wrong so would welcome advice even it turns out I'm wrong.

 

I now know when I finally had to sign the paper over a year later

I should have forced their hand or found a new mortgage provider

altogether but I banked with rbs and trusted their advice was inexperienced at mortgages full stop

and just trying to keep food on the table and a roof over my children's head as I had no other financial support.

 

Should I just accept the mortgage element compensation as £5 k is a lot for me

and I am worried that they will withdraw this if I don't agree to passing on the assurance front?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have they put conditions on the offer? Are they calling it compensation or a gesture of good will?

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

their letter of offer overturning their earlier one telling me I was out of time says compensation for mis sold endowment. they say they accept disabity cover from Royal scottish assurance was important to me but that I later accepted exclusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello

 

their letter seems to calculate the compensation on the basis

that difference of if I;d bought at the time a repayment mortgage

they say I converted to a capital and and interest

 

but as I recall I just took out a new one incurrying fees for this which do not seem to be part of their calcualtion

 

My belief is that its its about what my position should be if this had not been misold

is I would have kept the capital and interest mortage I wanted from the start so would not have paid assurance,

nor fees for a new mortgage.

 

The compensation seems to compare the difference in monthly payments I would have paid in the period right enough,

compared to paid plus 8 interest to date.

 

They have also considered it from an outlay for two types of mortage including relevant life cover.

 

This confuses me with the post above as assurance seems part of the mortgage.

 

Is there anywhere I can check what has been offered is fair without incurrying costs.

 

thanks to all for their great advice above much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there are no conditions attached and you are happy with the amount of compensation, then you could accept that as a payment to you, but make it clear that you will still pursue the insurance. You paid for cover for a year that you didn't have and it was (IMHO) clearly missold.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only just seen your last post. I'll ask ims to look in and advise on the calculations.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that as the account was mis-sold then redress should be offered for not only that account but all of the products that were sold as attached to that account.

 

This is because had that original account not have been sold to you then the other associated products which were linked to it would not have been needed either.

 

So I would certainly be pressing for a refund on any insurances linked to the main product.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks so much I will follow this advice

 

as far as the fact that it was an associated product and has been admitted was misold

as it was the opposite of what I wanted and asked for a standard repayment mortgage.

 

I have found the posts really helpful so thanks

 

I need to ask what IMHO means as its not clear to me.

 

their offer states if I refuse and go further with FOS then they will pull it .

 

they offer me to phone them but I feel out of my depth their offer does not seem to include

either the subseuqent costs of a new mortgage which I took on when I got a letter telling me the score 7 years later.

 

I had to pay for a valuation and arrangment fees which I would not have needed

if I had got what I went into the bank for the in first place a bog standard repayment mortgage.

 

thanks too for the offer of the IMS calculation as i have no idea if what they offer is reasonable.

 

I used to believe banks and so when I complained and got a letter saying I was out of time

I believed it till seeing Martin on the money programme who explained that the six/seven year rule

applies from when you reasonably could complain

 

if I had not seen this programme I would have believed the bank who wrote the date

I should have complained by as a deadline many years ago.

 

I now understand that this does not negate any issue of mis selling appropriate products

so whtinn the last week before the 6 months for the FSO

I challenged their interpreation of the rule with the compensation offer as a result.

 

I really am very pleased no relieved but at the same time astounded that they can uphold and overturn their own rules.

 

Their letter re Obusdan seems to say it will take 6 months and I may get more but perhaphs less

and if I go there they will withdraw their offer.

 

In a civiliassed world this is like blackmail not banking at least to me.

 

I know some of you are saying wake up and smell the coffee but Id like to think I can find a way we are all happy with.

 

I agree with the post before that any assurance formed the deal therefore it is an area to persue

their offer states that if I accept I have to drop all actions against them relating to this

therefore I assume this means assurance too.

 

thanks again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO = in my humble/honest opinion.

 

Apologies for the abbreviation.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that as the account was mis-sold then redress should be offered for not only that account but all of the products that were sold as attached to that account.

 

This is because had that original account not have been sold to you then the other associated products which were linked to it would not have been needed either.

 

So I would certainly be pressing for a refund on any insurances linked to the main product.

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree PPI has it's uses, but I have rarely, if ever, heard that people have been advised that they can shop around for it. Most people who post on CAG about PPI do so because they believe that they may have a claim for misselling.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And of course if the lender mis-sold a mortgage then it calls into question anything else the lender sold at the same time.

 

While it would be true that (using the example quoted) the buildings insurance is a requirement it does not mean that the victim of mis-selling needed to have taken a package recommended by the lender.

 

The point is that the OP should question everything after all, we know that banks are untrustworthy oiutfits.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

as with all of these cases

 

the 'deal' was done in a closed room

the advisor would have made commission on life,ppi & prob the mortgage too.

 

so why not say it is compulsory, no-one down the line can ever prove they said that.

 

might be an idea and get the statement of needs document.

 

bet that's got some interesting comments about what the customer agreed to with the advisor

 

bet the customer did not say half of what is on that sheet.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...