Tweet
I would like some advice regarding taking legal action against the FSCS in relation to a recent decision about compensation they have made.
Over the past year I have complained to the FSCS under MCOB rule 4.7 Suitable Advice in relation to mortgage advice. In November 2010 they confirmed (after much persuading) that the firm had been negligent, had breached MCOB, that the mortgage was inappropriate e.t.c.
Unfortunately they refused to compensate for the "mortgage specific" loss because there was the possibility that the client may have continued notwithstanding failings in the advice. As a result of this and because of their general incompetence they concluded that "it was difficult to assess any direct financial loss".
The FSCS did make a derisory offer of £2400 which amounted to the broker fees paid.
For the avoidance of doubt there is no evidence that the client would have continued with the sale regardless but the FSCS seem to want to peddle this argument.
I am well aware that these sort of claims are extremely rare but surely in professional negligence cases the remedy is to put the Claimant back in the position they would have been in? In this case the Claimant would not have paid for Solicitors, Early Repayment Charge, Estate Agent Fees, Search Fees e.t.c and would be on a cheaper mortgage. How and why the FSCS cannot see this as direct financial loss is beyond me. Another salient point is that the property they moved to is actually worth less (and was at the time - due to vendor gifted deposit) than the property moved from.
I would be interested to hear from anybody in a similar position or likewise the legal brains on the forum.
Please note - This case relates to my parents. I'm not a claims management company.
Kind Regards,
Over the past year I have complained to the FSCS under MCOB rule 4.7 Suitable Advice in relation to mortgage advice. In November 2010 they confirmed (after much persuading) that the firm had been negligent, had breached MCOB, that the mortgage was inappropriate e.t.c.
Unfortunately they refused to compensate for the "mortgage specific" loss because there was the possibility that the client may have continued notwithstanding failings in the advice. As a result of this and because of their general incompetence they concluded that "it was difficult to assess any direct financial loss".
The FSCS did make a derisory offer of £2400 which amounted to the broker fees paid.
For the avoidance of doubt there is no evidence that the client would have continued with the sale regardless but the FSCS seem to want to peddle this argument.
I am well aware that these sort of claims are extremely rare but surely in professional negligence cases the remedy is to put the Claimant back in the position they would have been in? In this case the Claimant would not have paid for Solicitors, Early Repayment Charge, Estate Agent Fees, Search Fees e.t.c and would be on a cheaper mortgage. How and why the FSCS cannot see this as direct financial loss is beyond me. Another salient point is that the property they moved to is actually worth less (and was at the time - due to vendor gifted deposit) than the property moved from.
I would be interested to hear from anybody in a similar position or likewise the legal brains on the forum.
Please note - This case relates to my parents. I'm not a claims management company.
Kind Regards,
Comment