Tweet
I am hoping I can get some expert legalbeagles opinions on this topic, especially your comments on the Financial Ombudsman Service adjudication. The adjudicator says that if I do not accept their opinion the case will be put before an Ombudsman.
Background:
My mortgage lender approached me 2 months before the end of the existing agreement. They offered a lower interest rate if I agreed to move to a different product. They said it would begin within two weeks of my agreeing on the telephone and the early repayment charge on the existing mortgage would be waived.
I agreed, as it was clearly to my benefit to save 6 weeks of the difference between old higher rate and new lower one.
Subsequently the lender did not implement the new lower rate until the old mortgage deal had expired. They later apologised that the salesman gave me wrong information in the sales call. They have offered a goodwill gesture, about 1/3 of the amount I was expecting to have saved.
I complained to the Financial Ombudsman Service. An FOS Adjudicator has replied as follows: (combined from more than 1 letter):
"I am satisfied that the offer to you was misrepresented by Bank X. Both parties agree and there is no dispute that you were given incorrect information by the representative of Bank X.
You were led to believe the early repayment charge for your previous product could be waived in order for you to move to the new product immediately. you explained that this was the basis upon which you made your decision to move to the new product
In general, where a company misrepresents an offer, the FOS considers what would have happened if correct information was provided at the time. In your case, you would not have been able to leave the previous product until the end of the tie in period because that is what you agreed to when you took out the previous mortgage. If you had been given correct information at the time, you would have been in the same position that you are now.
We do have regard for the law when drawing conclusions. The legal remedy for misrepresentation is to restore an individual to the position they would have been in had the misrepresentation not occurred. It is not to enforce the agreement that an individual thought they had.
In my opinion no actual financial loss occurred, although I do understand you have suffered a loss of expectation.
In conclusion I do not believe it would be reasonable for Bank X to pay you the difference in interest rates. I am satisfied that the goodwill sum offered by Bank X is fair and reasonable.
Yours sincerely
FOS Adjudicator".
Thank you and I look forward to your posts........
Background:
My mortgage lender approached me 2 months before the end of the existing agreement. They offered a lower interest rate if I agreed to move to a different product. They said it would begin within two weeks of my agreeing on the telephone and the early repayment charge on the existing mortgage would be waived.
I agreed, as it was clearly to my benefit to save 6 weeks of the difference between old higher rate and new lower one.
Subsequently the lender did not implement the new lower rate until the old mortgage deal had expired. They later apologised that the salesman gave me wrong information in the sales call. They have offered a goodwill gesture, about 1/3 of the amount I was expecting to have saved.
I complained to the Financial Ombudsman Service. An FOS Adjudicator has replied as follows: (combined from more than 1 letter):
"I am satisfied that the offer to you was misrepresented by Bank X. Both parties agree and there is no dispute that you were given incorrect information by the representative of Bank X.
You were led to believe the early repayment charge for your previous product could be waived in order for you to move to the new product immediately. you explained that this was the basis upon which you made your decision to move to the new product
In general, where a company misrepresents an offer, the FOS considers what would have happened if correct information was provided at the time. In your case, you would not have been able to leave the previous product until the end of the tie in period because that is what you agreed to when you took out the previous mortgage. If you had been given correct information at the time, you would have been in the same position that you are now.
We do have regard for the law when drawing conclusions. The legal remedy for misrepresentation is to restore an individual to the position they would have been in had the misrepresentation not occurred. It is not to enforce the agreement that an individual thought they had.
In my opinion no actual financial loss occurred, although I do understand you have suffered a loss of expectation.
In conclusion I do not believe it would be reasonable for Bank X to pay you the difference in interest rates. I am satisfied that the goodwill sum offered by Bank X is fair and reasonable.
Yours sincerely
FOS Adjudicator".
Thank you and I look forward to your posts........
Comment