greenspun.com : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread

I was just reading that a firm has been fined and ordered to pay compensation to it's customers after mis-selling their endownment mortgages, like many of us here with a special interest I'm sure!

I am fighting National Home Loans re what I believe was a mis-sold MIG which they are refusing to supply documents for to prove the debt. Has anyone ever tried approaching the FSA about companies refusal to supply these documents at all?

-- Heather Broadhurst (HEVA4EVA@aol.com), March 06, 2003



I think the only redress re refusing to supply info is with the Information Commisioner. I made a complaint when DLA didn't comply with a SARN request. Long drawn out process and I still don't have the info from them.

My understanding is that it's the Financial Ombudsman who deals with complaints re financial matters. I'm in the process of completing their forms to complain about being mis-sold a MIG.

Did you actually lodge a complaint with the FSA re being mis-sold a MIG? If so I would be really interested re how you got on. Then I could consider complaining to them too!!

I suspect that the mis selling of MIG's will eventually have it's day in court but as the process is so slow it might not be in our lifetime!!!!!

Everyone with this problem has to sign Mark Amos's petition and write to their MP's/MSP's. We have a duty to raise awareness of this problem.

I actually managed to trace the person who mis sold me my MIG (now an ex Abbey National employee). She ran a mile when I asked for her help!! After making further investigations I discovered that she now has her own Financial Services company. So I have advised her that intend to name her in my complaint to the Financial Ombudsman and that if I ever get to court I will cite her! I hope that she has had a few sleepless nights like I have over the past year.....it might be the only revenge I'll ever get!! It serves her right for being dishonest!!



-- hanging in there! (Anderston828@aol.com), March 07, 2003.


You wouldn't believe the endless list of organisations I have been to who just don't want to know... top of the list being the Financial Ombudsmen,

Financial Ombudsmen - Only investigate problems from firms regulated by them;

Finance & Leasing Association - Do not investigate purchase money mortgages below £50000;

Mortgage Code Compliance Board - Were not established at time of problem;

Council of Mortgage Lenders - do not investigate mortgage complaints;

Trading Standards - complaint is not in their remit;

C.A.B. - advised me to contact all of the above!

-- Heather (HEVA4EVA@aol.com), March 09, 2003.

More the reason we have to take as much control of raising the profile of the mortgage shortfall/MIG scandals by contacting our MP's and everyone else we can think of!


-- hanging in there! (Anderston828@aol.com), March 09, 2003.

A very helpful solicitor recently sent me the following which might be useful in preparing a defence (in relation to MIGS). The second para may be useful in cases where the lender has lost or refuses to produce MIG docs. Of course, please check this out with your own legal adviser. I have also been advised of the possibility of making a possible undervalue claim/counterclaim in cases where it is asserted that the claim is time barred, and where the lender has not made any attempt to inform the borrower of the sale price, or where a SARN has disclosed that the lender made no attempt to contact the borrower. It is uncertain, though, whether it has been tested in court. I'll post more on this later. Solicitor's info follows:

The defendant denies liability for the claim in that he/she was sold an insurance policy for the sum of £xxxx which was represented by the claimant's employee, Mr/s Xyz, as being for the defendant's benefit insofar as it would cover his/her liability should he/she default on his/her payments under the mortgage, and that following this misrepresentation, counterclaims for the value of the benefits of the policy, as represented, that is all sums payable under the policy. At no time was the defendant told the policy was for the sole benefit of the claimant and of no benefit to him/her.

In addition and in the alternative, the defendant counterclaims for the sum of £xxxx, being the premium for the insurance policy sold to him/her by the claimant's employee. There is no evidence that such a policy was purchased and the defendant puts the claimant on proof that the policy was in fact purchased.


-- M Amos (idgroms@hotmail.com), March 10, 2003.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ