Tweet
Re: Mortgage mis-selling (HBOS)
I like this link explaining UTCCR's https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...est-format.PDF
I like this link explaining UTCCR's https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...est-format.PDF
Loading...
-
-
Re: Mortgage mis-selling (HBOS)
It's been a while since I updated the thread.
There were some discussions going with Halifax, ironically since the press coverage I called Halifax and had a cagey call with the person handling the claim saying he couldn't talk to me about my case.
He'd told me previously that he would either send me a draft Tomlin order or their defence before 3 October, I've heard absolutely nothing from him since apart from having the call.
So I received a letter from the Registry Trust asking me who to register the judgment to so I replied saying;
I've now had this back from the Court;The Claimant brought a claim against Bank of Scotland Plc t/as Halifax. Further to the HBOS Act (reorganisation legislation 2008) and referred to as HBOS Plc. The Claim was served and acknowledged at their address. The Claimant served upon the Defendants address
as listed on their website http://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/our-group/contact-us/ under the section "Head Office sites" (Trinity Road).
The Claimant did not bring a claim against Lloyds Banking Group, the Defendant gave this name when the claim was acknowledged
and is part of the address in their acknowledgement.
The Judgment should therefore be registered in the name of Bank of Scotland Plc t/as Halifax.
Good afternoon,
Further to your response to the Registry Trust query enclosed, please be advised that you will need to apply on a draft order/N244 to amend the Defendant’s name.
How to apply
All forms are available to download from the Court FormFinder at www.justice.gov.uk/forms and can also be provided on request.
Complete form N244 as follows:
· Quote your Claim number in the relevant box on the top right of the N244.
· In questions 1 and 2 clarify who you are and how you are related to the claim e.g. Claimant, Solicitor etc.
· In question 3 write that the order you are seeking is to ‘amend the defendant’s name’ and provide a reason.
· It is not necessary to complete questions 4 – 9
· In question 10 clarify what evidence you wish to rely on in support of your application, if necessary providing any further details in the box provided.
· Sign the statement of truth in section 10.
· The applicant must sign the application in section 11; third party signatures are not accepted.
If you do not comply with the above the application will be returned to you.
How to apply when the Defendant’s name is completely different to the original
When you wish to amend the Defendant’s name to a completely different one or to show another person as the Defendant you will need to apply to set aside the Judgment, amend the Defendant’s name, extend the life of the Claim and re-serve the Claim form.
· Quote your Claim number in the relevant box on the top right of the N244.
· In questions 1 and 2 clarify who you are and how you are related to the Claim e.g. Defendant, solicitor etc.
· In question 3 write that the order you are seeking is to ‘set aside the Judgment, amend the Defendant’s name, extend the life of the Claim and re-serve’ and provide a reason.
· It is not necessary to complete questions 4 – 9
· In question 10 clarify what evidence you wish to rely on in support of your application, if necessary providing any further details in the box provided.
· Sign the statement of truth in section 10.
· The applicant must sign the application in section 11; third party signatures are not accepted.
You will then need to download a new N1 CPC form. If you are unable to download the form a copy can be provided on request. Please note, we cannot accept a reference copy. You will need to state the original details of the Claim on this form then cross through any amendments in red ink, you must then write the new details next to this. Information on how to re-serve the amended Claim Form will be sent to you once your application has been considered by the District Judge.
If you do not comply with the above the application will be returned to you.
Court fee
There is a £50.00 fee. Payment should be made by postal order or cheque made payable to HMCTS.
What happens next
Once you have paid the fee your application will be referred to the District Judge for consideration, you will then receive an order.
The guidelines contained within this letter are not legal advice. Court staff are not legally trained or responsible for the outcome of your case. You may wish to seek legal advice via a solicitor or local Citizens Advice Bureau.
Failure to make your application will result in the Judgment not being registered at Registry Trust Ltd therefore having no affect on the Defendant.
Please return the enclosed Registry Trust query with your application. Once your application has been processed we will notify Registry Trust.
If you require any further information please email us or contact our helpdesk on the number above.Comment
-
Re: Mortgage mis-selling (HBOS)
Hello & Happy New Year,
My claim against BOS is now moving on, I haven't been on the forum lately as things have been crazy at home. We are expecting a little addition to the family in August.
As expected the Judge ordered that the claim be re-served and I'm seeking permission to amend my POC's to the attached.
I wonder if some kind soul could look over them and tell me if they're any good or if there's anything I ought to change?
Cheers
orfosterComment
-
Re: Mortgage mis-selling (HBOS)
Hello all,
I haven't updated this for a while as things have been progressing through the Court.
All that has happened in this case now is that the Judge said the N1 must be re-served and then subsequently agreed to my Amended POC's so it all went off together (as agreed with Defendant) by e-mail.
Date of Service as agreed was 18 May 2015. However, despite them e-mailing me on 29 May to say that this was acknowledged both with the court and with me on 28 May 2015. Called the Court yesterday NOTHING RECEIVED, nor have I had anything.
Deadline for submitting Defence is 28 days from DOS so this Sunday?! Do I now apply for Judgment?
Here are my questions;
1. The Judge ordered the claim should be re-served - do they need to acknowledge as they did this originally first time round?
2. As they haven't done and the time is quite far gone now, do I apply for Judgment in Default? Which I did originally as well?
3. Surely a Judge wouldn't allow a set aside again would he??
ThanksComment
-
Re: Mortgage mis-selling (HBOS)
Anyone able to help? The Court said today that they should have filed it, its long overdue (1 June) and it still isn't with the Court or with me!Comment
-
Re: Mortgage mis-selling (HBOS)
If served on 18 May then 28 days is Monday so I would wait until after then to be safe and yes I guess all you can do is ask for Judgment in Default again. In the order for you to re serve particulars was there any order for their response ?
I'll have to read back through your thread see exactly what's happening - it looks like you've been a bit on your own with this so far
Sorry xx
#staysafestayhome
Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.
Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First StepsComment
-
Re: Mortgage mis-selling (HBOS)
There were two orders, one re set aside and then I had to make an application re amended POCs. The order dated 13 May ordered a defence must be served within 28 days of service of POC's so Monday. But in BOS e-mail to me they've said "we have filed our AOS with the court on 27 May" its out of time.Originally posted by Amethyst View PostIf served on 18 May then 28 days is Monday so I would wait until after then to be safe and yes I guess all you can do is ask for Judgment in Default again. In the order for you to re serve particulars was there any order for their response ?
I'll have to read back through your thread see exactly what's happening - it looks like you've been a bit on your own with this so far Sorry xx
I agree I'll leave it and wait until Monday.
Not at all, absolutely understand, In fairness nothing has moved too far forward yet. Hopefully either way by Monday we will have either a defence to work off or a default judgment.
Comment
-
Re: Mortgage mis-selling (HBOS)
Hi,
I've now received the Defence and below is my POC's and their Defence;
- The defendant is a firm regulated by the FCA under the Financial Service and Markets Act 2000 (as amended), the claim is brought pursuant to Financial Services Act 2012 s138D and as such the defendant is subject to the Mortgage Conduct of Business Regulations (MCOB) which requires inter alia that firms treat their customers fairly and communicate with them in a way that is clear, fair and not misleading (MCOB 2.2.5) and also s.140a Unfair Relationships Consumer Credit Act 2006 amendments.
As to Paragraph 1:
It is admitted that the defendant is regulated under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 ("FSMA").
The statutory references within this paragraph are inaccurate and misleading. The defendant reserves the right to plead further to the allegations if the claimant seeks to amend or correct such references. However, and without prejudice to the foregoing, it is admitted that the defendant is required to treat its customers fairly and to take reasonable steps to ensure that when it communicates information to a customer it must take reasonable steps to communicate in a way that is clear, fair and not misleading. - The claimant is a consumer as defined in the FCA Sourcebook
Paragraph 2 is admitted but its relevance is denied. - The said loan is subject to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCR). Specifically regulation 5 Unfair Terms and 7 Written Contracts (2).
Paragraph 3 is denied - The claimant has a mortgage agreement numbered XXXXXXXXXXXX “the agreement” with the defendant dated 9 September 2008 concerning a secured loan of £84,236.
Save that the amount of the mortgage advance was £83,750.00, Paragraph 4 is admitted. - The Claimant respectfully claims the defendant has breached a number the Mortgage Conduct of Business Sourcebook regulations that allows a “private person” to bring a claim.
It is not admitted, as alleged in Paragraph 5, that the defendant has breached a number of the Regulations. The claimant is requested to specify the Regulations to which he refers with details of the breaches on which he relies. - Specifically the Claimant claims pursuant to sections contained within MCOB;
- MCOB 2.2.6 (R) When a firm communicates information to a customer, it must take reasonable steps to communicate in a way that is clear, fair and not misleading.
- MCOB 2.2.7 (G) When considering how to comply with the requirements of these rules on clear, fair and not misleading communications and financial promotions, a firm should have regard to the customers knowledge of the home finance transaction to which the information relates.
- MCOB 2.5A.1 (R) A firm must act honestly, fairly and professionally in accordance with the best interests of its customer.
- MCOB 4.8.2 (G) - (1) MCOB 2.2.6 (Clear, fair and not misleading communications) applies to information provided to a customer in a non-advised sale, that is a sale of a regulated mortgage contract by a firm where the firm has not made a personal recommendation to the customer to enter into that particular regulated mortgage contract. In providing information on only a selection of the regulated mortgage contracts that it deals with, a firm will need to ensure that the selection is fair and unbiased. Where the non-advised sales process leads to the identification of only one regulated mortgage contract, a firm should have regard to the guidance on scripted questions in 3PERG 4.6.21 G to 4.6.25 G3.
- (2) In the course of a non-advised sale a firm may decide that a customer is considering a regulated mortgage contract that is inappropriate for that particular customer. Firms should note that, in such circumstances, although they are not providing advice to the customer, they are still conducting a regulated activity and are subject to the high-level standards, including PRIN. Principle 6 (Customers' interests) requires a firm to pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly. A firm selling what it considered to be an inappropriate product, would be in breach of Principle 6 as it would be conducting a regulated activity without regard to the customer's interests. In the FSA's opinion, the appropriate course in such cases would be for the firm to tell the customer to seek advice.
- MCOB 5.6.93Under the section heading 'Additional features' the illustration must include, where relevant, details of any additional features or facilities under the various sub-headings in MCOB 5.6.94 R.
- MCOB 5.6.93 (2) Only those features available on the regulated mortgage contract need be included in the illustration.
- MCOB 5.6.94 The relevant sub-headings are as follows: (2) 'Payment holidays';
As to Paragraph 6:- Sub-paragraphs a, b and c are admitted
- MCOB 4.8 having been deleted, sub-paragraphs d is denied
- The first part of sub-paragraph e is not admitted. The second part of sub-paragraph e, from the sentence beginning "Principle 6 (Customers' interests)" is admitted
- Sub-paragraphs f, g and h are admitted.
- In addition in accordance with PRIN 2.1, the principles state;
Paragraph 7 is admitted - Throughout the period in which the Claimant received advice and information from the Defendant a number of e-mail exchanges and telephone conversations took place, more specifically an email conversation on 29 July 2008, which led the Claimant to take a financial decision to take a mortgage with the Defendant at a specific rate of interest 6.14% fixed over 5 years.
Paragraph 8 is admitted in that a number of e-mail exchanges and telephone conversations took place between the claimant and the defendant's representative at various times and in particular on 28th, 29th and 31st July 2008. The defendant is unable to admit or deny the claimant's thought process in deciding whether or not to take a mortgage with the defendant. - On 29 July 2008, the Defendant advised the Claimant specifically, in an email, that his Shared Ownership Scheme was not interpreted by the bank as a “2nd mortgage”, in addition the Defendant stated that the Claimant would be entitled to take a Payment Holiday should he need it and further be able to take additional advances. The Claimant believed this to be true as the Defendant further advised that the Shared Ownership mortgage would be treated as a deposit by the bank.
Paragraph 9 is admitted save that the defendant is unable to admit or deny what the claimant believed at the time. - The Claimant sought clarity pursuant to a number of telephone conversations that took place with the Defendant, the Claimant had no reason to not believe the Defendant as the Defendant stated he had “checked” the position in the matter in question.
Save that the defendant's representative was female Paragraph 10 is admitted. - The Claimant claims the Defendant misrepresented the facts based on his skill and knowledge.
Paragraph 11 is not admitted. - It is admitted by the Defendant that the advice given on this date was inaccurate. In any event, at the time, it is argued that the Defendant did not have reasonable grounds for believing its statement to be true. The Claimant pleads the Defendant should have been in a position to know the facts.
As to Paragraph 12, it is admitted that the information provided by the defendant's representative in the exchange of e-mails on 29 July 2008 was incorrect insofar as, contrary to those assertions, the mortgage conditions did not allow the borrower to take a payment holiday.- However, within the documentation provided by the defendant to the claimant, there was a mortgage booklet which, at section 15, advised the borrower (the claimant in this matter) that the particular mortgage only allowed a holiday payment "if no second mortgage or subsequent charge has been registered from another lender". The particular mortgage (a "shared ownership mortgage") was subject to such a condition as was readily apparent from the mortgage booklet.
- Further, if as the claimant asserts (but which the defendant does not admit) no mortgage booklet was provided with the other documentation, then it should be apparent to a putative borrower, given a number of references to the booklet in the other documentation, that the booklet was missing and that the borrower (the claimant in this matter) should have requested that a copy be supplied to him.
- The Defendant was aware that the Claimant was considering his position in relation to taking a mortgage with them or “shopping around” and whether he would secure a fixed rate mortgage based on the benefits available.
- The Claimant made enquiries with other mortgage providers, and the deciding factor was that the Defendant offered the additional benefit and security of a Payment Holiday and further advances and therefore the Claimant decided to secure a fixed rate mortgage with the Defendant, feeling secure that the payments would remain the same and the additional benefits would be available.
Paragraphs 13 and 14 are not admitted. - The Claimant learned in November 2012 that the Defendant provided inaccurate information in email exchanges on 29 July 2008, namely that;
- The Defendant would not consider at any stage a request for a Payment Holiday due to the Shared Ownership Scheme.
- The Defendant would not consider the payment from a shared ownership scheme as a deposit.
- The Defendant would not allow an application for a further mortgage due to the shared ownership scheme.
The date of the claimant's knowledge is not known, otherwise Paragraph 15 is admitted.
- The Claimant pleads he would not have taken the financial decision to fix his mortgage product for 5 years at 6.14% had he been aware of the facts as this would have not placed him any greater of a secure position in respect of the benefits or risk of payment fluctuation.
Paragraph 16 is not admitted. - The Claimant pleads that he sought clarification with the Defendant on 29 July 2008 as the deciding factor as to whether or not proceed with the mortgage with those terms.
It is admitted, as asserted in Paragraph 17, that the claimant sought the clarification referred to in the exchange of e-mails at the end of July 2008. No admissions are made as to the claimant's thought process either before or after the receipt of such clarification. - The Claimant claims that he would have either sought another creditor offering the terms or he would have remained on a non-fixed mortgage product in order to switch provider. Something which the Defendant was aware of at the time during a number of telephone conversations that took place in or around July 2008.
Paragraph 18 is not admitted. - The Claimant agreed with the Defendant a nil arrangement due to a change in employment for a period of two months, the Defendant did not allow the Claimant to apply for a “Payment Holiday”.
Save that the defendant would not have prevented the claimant from making application for a payment holiday but rather would have indicated that such an application would be refused, Paragraph 19 is admitted - This is the result of unfair treatment by the defendant and therefore is in breach of contract and the defendant's statutory duty to treat their customers fairly contained in MCOB and further the UTCCRs, I therefore ask the court to assess the term to which this claim relates.
As to Paragraph 20, it is not admitted that the claimant was treated unfairly. The claimant is put to proof as to the specific term of the contract and as to the statutory provision or provisions allegedly breached by the defendant. In any event the defendant has a duty, imposed by MCOB 11.6.2, before agreeing to vary a regulated mortgage contract to assess whether the customer will be able to pay the sums due. The defendant assessed the claimant's application, and agreed that he would be allowed a period of two months in which he would not be required to make payments, but decided, in its discretion, that any further stay of payments would not be in the best interests of either the claimant or the defendant. - There is a helpful ruling from the High Court which sets out the way in which such terms can be considered unfair: Office of Fair Trading v Ashbourne Management Services Ltd [2011] EWHC 1237 (Ch).
- Although Ashbourne was a case relating to the fairness of gym contracts under the UTCCRs, it dealt directly with the amounts that a consumer had to pay under the contract, the timing of the payments, the number of payments, and the duration of those payments. Ashbourne also addressed a number of issues which give useful guidance as to how the Relevant Terms in this claim could be considered unfair:
a) a consumer tended to overestimate how often they will make use of the services (para. 164); b) the defendants knowledge of this overestimation (para. 171);
c) the unforeseen circumstances which will render use of the services impractical or unaffordable for the consumer (paras 167, 171);
d) the overall liability of a consumer (para. 171);
e) the failure of the defendant to sufficiently bring these matters and the associated risks to the attention of the consumer (para 171);
f) the defendant’s business model was designed and calculated to take advantage of the naivety and inexperience of the average consumer (para 173); and
g) the Relevant Terms contained a trap into which the average consumer is likely to fall (para 173).
The reported case referred to by the claimant in Paragraphs 21 and 22 is noted. Its relevance is not admitted. - The Claimant further claims that throughout the joint application process, he did at all times believe that other parties named on the mortgage were assessed accordingly, it has since transpired through internal documents provided by the Defendant that the Defendant dismissed Miss Kayleigh Dinham’s income in its assessment, the Claimant alone would have proceeded with the application alone, had the Defendant not withheld this information. At no time did the Defendant advise the Claimant accordingly.
The defendant is unable to admit or deny the claimant's thought processes as set out in Paragraph 23. In any event the relevance of this paragraph is not admitted. It is denied that the claimant has suffered any loss and further denied that any such loss (none being admitted) arising out of the allegations set forward in paragraph 23 was caused by those allegations. - In accordance with the Financial Services and Markets Act, contravention of which by an authorised person may be actionable under section 150 of the Act (Actions for damages) by a person who suffers loss as a result of the contravention.
Save that it is admitted that under the provisions of section 150 (1)of the FSMA a contravention by an authorised person is actionable at the suit of a private person who has suffered loss as a result of the contravention, Paragraph 24 does not make sense. - The Claimant claims the Defendant has by his actions breached his statutory duty by giving inaccurate information and advice and further misrepresenting the facts, breached the contract, the Claimant further claims that the term be unfair.
It is not admitted that (as alleged in Paragraph 25) that the defendant provided inaccurate information in breach of its statutory duty. It is averred that the incorrect information by the claimant was subsequently corrected prior to the mortgage agreement becoming effective and in a way that was or should have been readily apparent to the claimant.Further, it is not admitted that the claimant was treated unfairly. The claimant is put to proof as to the specific term of the contract and/or as to the statutory provision or provisions relied upon by him in support of his allegation that the defendant was in breach of contract and/or treated him unfairly. - As a result of the Defendant’s breaches the Claimant claims damages.
It is denied that any breaches on the part of the defendant (none being admitted) have caused loss to the claimant as alleged in Paragraph 26. - By virtue of the above, the defendant has treated the claimant unfairly and in breach of their obligations under MCOB.
- The Claimant calculates his losses comparable to his rate of interest at 6.14% and that of a Standard Variable Rate with the Defendant.
- The Claimant claims losses as particularised above and/or respectfully any amount at the Courts discretion.
Paragraph 27 is denied and accordingly Paragraph 28 and 29 are otiose. - The Claimant claims that due to the position he was placed in, his credit file has suffered and the Defendant should not have processed inaccurate information with Credit Reference Agencies pursuant to the Data Protection Act 1998 Principle 1 and 4, the Claimant further claims damages pursuant to s13 and requests an order from the court pursuant to s14 to erase and destroy the inaccurate information, the Claimant was not allowed to take a Payment Holiday as promised by the Defendant. The Claimant claims that the Defendant places the Claimant in the same position had he taken a Payment Holiday in respect of the Claimants credit file.
As to Paragraph 30 the claimant has not provided sufficient information as to his allegations that inaccurate information was processed and supplied to credit reference agencies, nor as to what damages he claims and, other than in the broadest of outlines, why. It is admitted that the defendant provided information to the credit reference agencies in accordance with standard practice. The information so provided was accurate and cannot be removed. The defendant reserves the right to plead more fully to this allegation should the information be provided or the particulars of claim be re-amended. - The Claimant claims pursuant to his request dated 6 May 2013 in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 s7, the Defendant failed to comply within the prescribed time, more specifically the Defendant had a prescribed period of 40 days to comply, the Claimant pleads the Defendant failed to comply January 2014.
It is admitted (as alleged in Paragraph 31) that on or about 06 May 2013 the claimant made a request of the defendant under the Data Protection Act for a Data Subject Access Report. The request was received by the defendant on 10 May 2013. The defendant was required to forward the report within 40 days of receipt and should therefore have responded on or before 19 June 2013. Due to the complex nature of the claimant's connection with the defendant the report was not sent until 26 June 2013. The claimant was kept fully informed as to the progress of his request throughout the period from 10 May 2013 to 26 June 2013. It is admitted that there was, therefore, a delay of seven days. The claimant is put to strict proof of any loss incurred by him as a result of this delay. - The Information Commissioner held that on 20 November 2013, it was unlikely the Defendant complied with its obligations in accordance with the Data Protection Act, despite this the Defendant still failed to comply with the Claimants request for data until January 2014 and did not fully comply with the specific request until its letter dated 26 July 2014.
Paragraph 32 is noted. It is not admitted that the defendant delayed in its response and/or did not comply with the DSAR request until 26 July 2014. - The Claimant respectfully requests any compensation awarded at the discretion of the Court in respect of the Defendants breaches.As to Paragraph 33. The claimant is put to strict proof of any loss occasioned by the defendant's delay in responding to his DSAR request.
- The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from 29 July 2008 to 26 July 2014 on £7,803.57 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £2.03. Totalling £9,858.26It is denied that the claimant is entitled to interest as claimed in Paragraph 34 or at all.
Comment
- The defendant is a firm regulated by the FCA under the Financial Service and Markets Act 2000 (as amended), the claim is brought pursuant to Financial Services Act 2012 s138D and as such the defendant is subject to the Mortgage Conduct of Business Regulations (MCOB) which requires inter alia that firms treat their customers fairly and communicate with them in a way that is clear, fair and not misleading (MCOB 2.2.5) and also s.140a Unfair Relationships Consumer Credit Act 2006 amendments.
-
Re: Mortgage mis-selling (HBOS)
Hi everyone,
The most important bits to note I think are;- The terms and conditions referred to state that any term that doesn't apply to the mortgage will be excluded from the mortgage offer. Payment Holidays were contained on the offer.
- Obviously the Advisor told me by phone and by e-mail that Payment Holidays applied to the mortgage.
- The Defendant failed to respond at all to several reminder letters re the SAR. E-mails were sent to CEO and ICO upheld that they failed to respond for over a year.
They want to speak to me in 2 weeks by phone to discuss the case, however, I still want to work out my strengths ready for the discussion.
Comment
-
Re: Mortgage mis-selling (HBOS)
I love though that essentially they admit the e-mail I received was inaccurate.
I can post up the terms I refer to though, although I think this might be earlier in the thread.Comment
-
Re: Mortgage mis-selling (HBOS)
''As to Paragraph 12, it is admitted that the information provided by the defendant's representative in the exchange of e-mails on 29 July 2008 was incorrect insofar as, contrary to those assertions, the mortgage conditions did not allow the borrower to take a payment holiday.
However, within the documentation provided by the defendant to the claimant, there was a mortgage booklet which, at section 15, advised the borrower (the claimant in this matter) that the particular mortgage only allowed a holiday payment "if no second mortgage or subsequent charge has been registered from another lender". The particular mortgage (a "shared ownership mortgage") was subject to such a condition as was readily apparent from the mortgage booklet.
Further, if as the claimant asserts (but which the defendant does not admit) no mortgage booklet was provided with the other documentation, then it should be apparent to a putative borrower, given a number of references to the booklet in the other documentation, that the booklet was missing and that the borrower (the claimant in this matter) should have requested that a copy be supplied to him.''
not sure that holds much water
Anyway you asked specifically about a payment holiday and were told you could have a payment holiday - that supersedes that you may or may not have had a booklet with a term in it saying you couldn't - and that you relied on the statement that you could have a payment holiday in making the decision to enter into the agreement. I don't think they have done a good enough job of disputing that is the case.Last edited by Amethyst; 14th June 2015, 18:50:PM.#staysafestayhome
Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.
Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First StepsComment
-
Re: Mortgage mis-selling (HBOS)
Yes, essentially the booklet they refer to goes round in circles. It says all of the stuff you may have as additional benefits and says 'see mortgage offer to see if this applies to you' which it does say it applies which is why I emailed to check with them and had it confirmed in writing it was an additional feature.Comment
-
Re: Mortgage mis-selling (HBOS)
To quote the booklet they refer to;
of course the offer didn't. It stated this applied.Some of the practices and procedures in this booklet may not apply to your mortgage. If this is the case, we will tell you in your offer which your or our conveyancer will explain to you.
I just wonder if I should reply to their defence.Comment
-
Re: Mortgage mis-selling (HBOS)
I don't think it is neccessary - you've both put the facts/arguments forwards, then you will back those up before court with disclosure of documents and witness statements, and potentially a skeleton argument, I'd stick with due court process.
Exactly why you would rely on what they told you in your email chat about payment holidays. I think they have pooped their own argument there.Some of the practices and procedures in this booklet may not apply to your mortgage. If this is the case, we will tell you in your offer which your or our conveyancer will explain to you.#staysafestayhome
Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.
Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First StepsComment
-
Re: Mortgage mis-selling (HBOS)
seems very clear to me, their misrep made you take the transactional decision you wouldn't otherwise have taken, and because you relied on it you have been disadvantaged as you had two months nil payments marked on your credit file and arrears charges added? as opposed to two months preplanned payment holidays which wouldn't have impacted your credit file nor attracted fees.So, I needed to check some things that confused me in the mortgage documents they sent through in relation to payment holidays, my ex at the time wasn't very secure in her job and if we were to buy a house together I wanted to make sure we could get a payment holiday if we needed one temporarily.
In the chain of emails attached you will see a really important conversation between me and the Mortgage advisor about being able to take a payment holiday - she said "YES" it would apply to us, even though we had this other Government thing. So on that basis we took the mortgage with HBOS on a fixed rate for 5 years.#staysafestayhome
Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.
Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First StepsComment
Comment