Mortgage Decision Reference 2022-0175

Case OutcomePartially upheld
Subject MatterMortgage
Reference2022-0175
Date27 May 2022
Finantial SectorBanking
Conducts Complained OfMis-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].

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT