missold [told compulsory] all manner of mortgage insurances in 1994 - can i reclaim them?

[Hortz]

Here is the offer of mortgage including insurance. Hopefully its now attached. If not I don't know what to do.

 

I would appreciate Hortz's views

 

 

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]46699[/ATTACH]

 

You wouldn't mate, believe me.

 

I'm sorry to hear about your personal difficulties.

 

But I'm not willing to comment on this matter any further.

 

It's been made perfectly clear to me that considered and reasoned opinion is not welcome on this site

unless its what people want to hear

and that reasoned and factual comment are frowned upon in favour of cheerleading and sycophancy.

 

 

Good luck with everything but I'm not getting involved any further.

[lulilu]

Since receiving this reply from dx

 

I've been hunting round for information to help me decide on whether to take this mortgage lender to court.

 

The answer,

certainly after receiving the reply from Hortz,

is I don't know what to do.

 

Whatever I decide to do I fully understand that the decision is mine and mine alone.

 

Nevertheless can anyone help me make my mind up.

 

As I see things the mortgage company has said that I knew of

and was fully aware of the limitations of the insurance I was taking out.

 

The mortgage company say they do not have the documents I signed.

 

The best they can do is produce documents from 2 to 4 years after the mortgage.

 

Although what they say is rubbish

and I was told the insurance was a condition of the mortgage

I understand that I will have to prove my case.

 

I do not think it's enough for me to go to court and ask a judge

what was the point of me taking out useless insurance

when I was fully aware of its limitation and exclusions in my case.

 

Can anybody help me with this.

[dx100uk]

have you replied to the fob off letter?

 

dx

[lulilu]

Yes I have, twice. I have not received any replies. I did not reply to them in any great detail but as their fob off letter stated it was their final response.

[dx100uk]

time to have a chat with the fos me thinks.

 

dx

[lulilu]

My experience of the FOS is to keep away from it. So I'm confused again. I thought the advice of CAg was to go to court. Why the conflicting advice. Is the new FOS better than the old FOS

[dx100uk]

the choice is yours.

 

as to new/old FOS, dunno what you mean.........

 

the advise is not conflicting

 

it options you can choose

 

dx

[Hortz]

My experience of the FOS is to keep away from it. So I'm confused again. I thought the advice of CAg was to go to court. Why the conflicting advice. Is the new FOS better than the old FOS

 

Three reasons:

 

1) FOS is free. Court action isn't (especially if you lose)

2) You've got much more chance of a positive result. FOS tend to make it up as they go along and consider what they believe to be "fairness" as well as law and regulation. If you go to court you will need to prove lawful wrongdoing.

3) You always have the option of going to court if you don't get the outcome you want at FOS (though its unlikely you'd win). FOS will not consider a matter that is subject to court action unless it is discontinued.

 

It is usually a bad idea to go to court over PPI. Sure you might get lucky with an overworked bank legal department unable to spare the time to deal with a small fry PPI matter over a couple of grand. But if they do turn up then you will generally struggle.

[Figgydoody]

Hi Lulilu,

 

I stumbled across your thread and have read it with interest.

 

The only advice I can give is, when you are unsure of what to do in a situation that may involve you starting legal proceedings, the best thing to do is nothing! Well, almost nothing.....Sometimes, imo, you have to go away and take plenty of time to think about the situation. Don't put pressure on yourself to make a decision one way or the other until you have exhausted all channels of help and information.

 

Answers do not always present themselves immediately, and I have found this time and again with stuff I have and am dealing with, or maybe I'm just a bit dim!lol The point is, you should not rush to judgment either in proceeding with taking action or abandoning matters altogether.

 

CAG is a wonderful source of extremely useful info, but you should look at all options for gathering info for your case. It's amazing the stuff you can find on the internet, and who knows what you might discover! (Do consider the source of the info though). Yes, it may prove time consuming, but if you honestly feel you have a case, you need to keep plugging away, until hopefully you find what you need!

 

I wish you the best of luck!

 

Figgydoody.

[lulilu]

I still find the advice of dx100 is contradictory;

until now the advice, as I see it, of CAG is keep away from the FOS and go to court instead.

Indeed this is my experience as every time I have had dealings with FOS I have come away with the feeling that I have been conned

or that they have been acting in the interests of the bankers rather than being neutral

 

I am now starting to think that Hortz is right and the advice of figgydoody is entirely what I think.

I'm sorry to say this but for the first time I'm not sure to feeling confident about accepting the advice of CAG;

I asked CAG for advice and they seem to have skirted the subject.

Can people tell me if the "new" FOS is the same as the original FOS.

 

For the record I am not scared of taking on the banks in court

but I need at least to have an idea of at least 50% success and CAG has not given me this assurance.

I'm sorry once again but this ambivalence, as I see it, on the part of CAG has left me feeling demoralised

and I do not know what to do.

Maybe a CMC ?

 

Thanks again to people who have taken the time to give me advice.

[dx100uk]

again...whats this new/old FOS stuff?

 

'i' as in me as in 'not CAG representing as a whole have said atleast twice I would not do court on this.

 

hortz, has, quite nicely explained why.

 

CMC's have no more nor less clout than you.

they have no special powers nor waivers or anything

plus, with the 20% vat and now the compulsory 20% deduction for tax

 

you can lose upto 60% thru a CMC

 

dx

[Figgydoody]

Hi Lulilu,

 

I am simply saying that sometimes rushing to judgment one way or the other is not a good thing. I think you need to do some more research before making a decision. And you should utilise other information resources in addition to CAG, to give you as much assistance as possible.

 

Personally, I don't like the FOS, and wouldn't want to take any of my disputes to them. But if your case isn't strong enough for Court, that's perhaps what you'll have to consider doing. CMC's will take a lot of your money, when you can do the work yourself, and would be a waste of time. As far as Court action is concerned, nobody can give you any sort of guarantee as it's always a risk, that's not just in your situation, but for anyone who goes down the litigation route.

 

I just think you need to be sure of the grounds on which you are seeking redress before considering any option, that's why I'm saying do lots of reading, and then re-visit the issues armed with as many arguments as possible. There really is no substitute for research.

 

Best of luck.

 

Figgy.

[Figgydoody]

On another point, are you perhaps confusing the FOS with the FSA/FCA?

 

The FOS is who you would take your dispute to. The FSA/FCA is the regulatory body for the financial services industry.

 

Figgy.

[Hortz]

On another point, are you perhaps confusing the FOS with the FSA/FCA?

 

The FOS is who you would take your dispute to. The FSA/FCA is the regulatory body for the financial services industry.

 

Figgy.

 

This is quite likely. As regards FOS it has existed since 2001 which the Financial Services & Markets Act 2000 came into effect and also created the FSA (now the FCA). It took over a number of previous sector specific Ombudsman schemes. It has not been rebranded since.

 

The FCA tbh is just the same old toy in new packaging. But it doesn't not adjudicate on consumer disputes.

[Hortz]

Incidentally, I would get the idea of CMCs out of your head.

 

They can do nothing that you can't do.

 

They don't have some kind of silver bullet

and don't have any kind of influence with banks, most of whom treat them with polite professional courtesy,

but on the whole hold nothing but contempt for them.

 

They are not some kind of skilled courtroom brawlers who will force the bank to hand over money.

 

At best they will write a couple of ranting standard letters,

get told to do one and then go to FOS (if your time limit hasn't expired by then).

 

Which you are capable of doing yourself and, to be honest, are much more likely to be believed.

[lulilu]

Thank you once again for taking the time and trouble to reply to me.

 

As regards the FOS. I thought the FCA had revamped the FOS and given it greater powers or rather ensured it represented consumers better than previously. It seems I'm wrong.

 

When I took out my mortgage I was told a condition of the mortgage was that I had to take out an insurance package. This package had two components (a) a combined buildings and contents insurance and (b) PPI. All other mortgage lenders were the same.

 

The mortgage company has told me that I knew and was fully aware of the limitation of PPI for the self employed and I freely chose the combined house and buildings cover. The mortgage company has no written documentation relating to me directly that I signed. All that they have is documents from several years after I went somewhere else. The say these documents were the ones I would have signed.

 

Three problems I seem to have are

(i) what do people think my chances are in court if it came to my word against that of the mortgage company. Why on earth I should I freely choose to buy something that is useless for is beyond me. In the absence of written documentation how much proof do I need to satisfy a court

(ii) there was one insurance package with two components. I did not pay the separate insurance premiums. I paid just one premium. So can I claim a refund of the entire package of just the PPI bit and

(iii) Is it compound interest I claim or simple interest.

 

These are the questions that bother me, particularly (i). What I'm really after are statute and authorities. I just do not know where to go to do research as figgy puts it. I can do this myself but like a ship at sea on a foggy night it needs a compass and some sort of map with an idea where it is to start with. At the moment I don't feel I have anything.

[dx100uk]

Thank you once again for taking the time and trouble to reply to me.

 

As regards the FOS. I thought the FCA had revamped the FOS and given it greater powers or rather ensured it represented consumers better than previously. It seems I'm wrong.

 

When I took out my mortgage I was told a condition of the mortgage was that I had to take out an insurance package. This package had two components (a) a combined buildings and contents insurance and (b) PPI. All other mortgage lenders were the same.

 

The mortgage company has told me that I knew and was fully aware of the limitation of PPI for the self employed and I freely chose the combined house and buildings cover. The mortgage company has no written documentation relating to me directly that I signed. All that they have is documents from several years after I went somewhere else. The say these documents were the ones I would have signed.

 

Three problems I seem to have are

(i) what do people think my chances are in court if it came to my word against that of the mortgage company. Why on earth I should I freely choose to buy something that is useless for is beyond me. In the absence of written documentation how much proof do I need to satisfy a court

- difficult but not impossible see below ans.

(ii) there was one insurance package with two components. I did not pay the separate insurance premiums. I paid just one premium. So can I claim a refund of the entire package of just the PPI bit and

- I would reclaim the whole lot - they'll soon splitout the building premiums, the ONLY ONE that you must have with a mortgage.

(iii) Is it compound interest I claim or simple interest. - it will be CI int.

 

These are the questions that bother me, particularly (i). What I'm really after are statute and authorities. I just do not know where to go to do research as figgy puts it. I can do this myself but like a ship at sea on a foggy night it needs a compass and some sort of map with an idea where it is to start with. At the moment I don't feel I have anything.

 

- you need to research the fact that by selling then all in one .lump package' they broke whatever rules were inplace at the time regarding you only need buildings ins on a mortgage.

 

my musings

 

dx

[lulilu]

Thanks for this dx. I very much appreciate the time and patience you devote to giving me advice.

 

I can prove they sold me the insurance as a package. In fact they admit as much. They say they just followed my instructions.

 

What bothers me are the three questions that have me stumped. If as you ay I shouldn't go to court over this then what am I to do - the mortgage company solicitors refuse to correspond with me. They have said the matter is closed as far as they are concerned. If I do not start court action then surely there is nothing else apart from a CMC. Can anyone help me with this dilema.

[dx100uk]

time to have a chat with the fos me thinks

 

please heed the info given regarding CMC's

 

hortz etc has already posted

 

dx

[Hortz]

Go to FOS. They are your best bet. Under the Financial Services Act they are entitled to make decisions based on "what is fair and reasonable" in their opinion. This regularly results in complaints being upheld there that would never stand up on court and no right of recourse for the respondent. If they don't uphold then its probably time to let this one go.

 

As per my previous post, CMcs can do nothing you can't. And whilst this isn't a legal matter (just a complaint of unfair treatment) if you do to court you are making it one and hence the responsibility will be on your to prove lawful wrongdoing.

[lulilu]

I'm now completely confused. I'm firstly advised to keep away from fos - just look at the advice of cag regarding fos. Now the advice is to contact fos. Is this contradictory advice or is it just me missing something.

[Hortz]

I'm now completely confused. I'm firstly advised to keep away from fos - just look at the advice of cag regarding fos. Now the advice is to contact fos. Is this contradictory advice or is it just me missing something.

 

I can't comment on advice given by other people. My comments are based around my own personal knowledge and nothing else.

[dx100uk]

'CAG' itself does not give advise

 

various people give their advise.

on a voluntary basic to 'help' people

 

no 'one' person represents a CAG 'view'

 

just because some or none of those people discussing 'a' subject are or are not site team

does not mean its a view held and supported by CAG.

 

dx