Mortgage Decision Reference 2022-0175

• Case Outcome: Partially upheld
• Reference: 2022-0175
• Date: 27 May 2022
• Year: 2022
• Subject Matter: Mortgage
• Finantial Sector: Banking
• Conducts Complained Of: Mis-selling

Decision Ref:

2022-0175

Sector:

Banking

Product / Service:

Mortgage

Conduct(s) complained of:

Mis-selling

Outcome:

Partially upheld

LEGALLY BINDING DECISION

OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN

This complaint relates to the sale of a lifetime mortgage loan to the Complainant and her

late husband by the Provider, a broker, in October 2006.

The Provider (the “First Broker”) was an appointed intermediary of a named Second

Broker (the “Second Broker”). The Second Broker in turn was an appointed intermediary

of a named Mortgage Lender (the “Mortgage Lender”). The Mortgage Lender ultimately

extended the lifetime mortgage loan to the Complainant and her late husband in 2006.

Sadly, the Complainant’s husband passed away in January 2015. Consequently, the

Complainant now maintains this complaint in her sole name. Insofar as the Complainant is

referred to below, the actions of the Complainant, and her position referred to below, are

also taken to include the actions and position of her late husband.

This complaint concerns only the above-named Respondent Provider (the First Broker).

The parties are aware that separate complaints have been made against the Second

Broker and the Mortgage Lender and that the documents and evidence available from all

three complaint investigations by this Office, have been shared amongst all parties.

The lifetime mortgage loan that is the subject of this complaint is secured on the

Complainant’s dwelling house and this facilitated a drawdown of €270,000 in 2006. The

mortgage has a fixed interest rate of 6.74% and an APR of 6.95%. (the “Loan”)

- 2 -

/Cont’d…

The complaint is that in or around October 2006, the Provider mis-sold the Loan to the

Complainant because:

• the Provider did not explain the nature and implications of the Loan; and

• the Loan was unsuitable to the Complainant’s requirements as it was a lifetime

product on which the Complainant could not make repayments.

An assessment of the jurisdiction of this Office to investigate this complaint was carried

out, and this Office concluded by way of Final Jurisdictional Determination on 27 May

2021, that this complaint was made within the applicable statutory time limits.

The Complainant’s Case

First Meeting

The Complainant submits that she and her son, first met with the Provider in or around

October 2006, at the Provider’s office. The purpose of this meeting was to secure funding

to assist their son in reaching a financial settlement with his ex-wife. The Complainant

explains that she and her late husband had previously approached their Bank with a view

to securing such funding but they had not been successful due to their advanced age. The

Complainant states that the Provider’s representative, “Mr X”, suggested an equity release

product, but that:

“.. he went on to say that he did not know much about [the equity release product]

but would find out and get back to [the Complainant]”

The Complainant submits that the Provider did not supply her with any further information

or advice about the lifetime loan during the course of this meeting.

Second Meeting

The Complainant states that a number of days later, in or around 12 October 2006, the

Provider’s representative, Mr X visited her home, and dropped off application forms for

two different mortgage lenders, which she and her husband completed themselves. The

Complainant contends that:

“‘[n]o details or product information was supplied when [Mr X] dropped the forms

off. In fact he came to the house with a measuring tape in hand (full explanation of

which was never provided) and then left without providing an explanation apart

from the instructions to drop both forms back to his office. We never met [Mr X]

again and the contracts were sent to a Solicitor in [location] to sign off on purely for

drawdown of the cheque.

How can [Mr X] now say that we were advised by him as per his communication

dated 18th December when he outlined clearly to our solicitors on the letter dated

2nd August 2012 that he did not advise us and it was up to [the Mortgage Lender].