Join Today
Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1

    Mis sold mortgage?

    I have seen a few threads like this and people being told there is limited success for this kind of claim. I just wanted some advice based on my own corcumstances.

    Myself and my partner were sold a subprime interest only mortgage in 2007 the interest rate was 6.29. It was for the value of 90500, 87,500 mortgage amount and the rest were buying fees added to the mortgage. I was not advised to take out any savings etc to work towards paying the capital. I was not told that this was a sub prime lender or a high interest rate for a mortgage. The property was recently valued at 75,000 so I am significantly in negative equity. We were on low incomes and were charged a higher lending fee, I was 19 and pregnant at the time and we thought it would be best to have somewhere stable to live, both living with parents at the time. We had some debt and missed payments and things on credit file as far as I can remember but no ccjs or anything like that. We did benefit from interest rates dropping when the variable rate kicked in after 2 years and I believe my interest rate is now 5% ish.
    I looked up help for people in negative equity and spoke to a company who started talking about mis selling, I didn't really understand the responsibility of broker at the time.

    Does this sound like the basis for a misseling claim? The mortgage was with Gmac now mortgage express.

    Thanks for any advice, we now have 2 children in a 2 bedroom flat and can't afford to move and can't remortgage as negative equity.

  2. #2
    anna marrie Tar
    Guest
    Why are you saying it was miss sold?

    Negative equity - that is not the brokers fault.
    Interest only - if your incomes were low, this allowed you to get the property on an easier affordability calculation.
    Sub prime - you have said you had missed payments. Whether or not the adverse you did have was bad enough to have to go for a sub prime mortgage only your broker will know. Missed payments, low incomes and interest only is never a great mix so you probably were limited to sub prime lenders.

    Now a days it would not be possible to place, but we are talking 10 years ago. It was a very different world back then. To be fair, the broker actually got you what you wanted - security. You have probably paid less on repayments than you would have in rent?

    On a side note, that rate is not actually that bad. I remember seeing a Halifax Mortgage sold in 2006/2007 at a rate of 5.99% and that is a high street lender.

    If you want to complain, you are well within your rights to. But do it yourself. Dont pay claims management companies to do something you can do for free. They will tell you whatever you want to hear if they are charging an upfront fee.

  3. #3
    Angelikanitte
    Guest
    If you paid off the negative equity you could move, but then if you couldn't afford to save enough to do that over the past few years you couldn't have afforded to pay down the capital so the fact you believe you weren't advised you needed to save money to pay off the 90.5k* is a moot point. If you could have afforded it you'd have enough saved to pay it.

    What did you do with the money you had spare due to the total payment being lower as its interest only? If your answer was "we didnt have any spare" well then what else other than an interest only mortgage could you have got?

    Most likely you've paid less than if you were in rented but even if it turns out to have been a bad move in retrospect because of the negative equity now, you dont get to make a one-way bet where if there's negative equity its the lenders fault or if you make a profit, you keep it all. You wouldn't be in favour of the lender taking your positive equity if the situation was reversed.

  4. #4
    If you paid off the negative equity you could move, but then if you couldn't afford to save enough to do that over the past few years you couldn't have afforded to pay down the capital so the fact you believe you weren't advised you needed to save money to pay off the 90.5k* is a moot point. If you could have afforded it you'd have enough saved to pay it.

    What did you do with the money you had spare due to the total payment being lower as its interest only? If your answer was "we didnt have any spare" well then what else other than an interest only mortgage could you have got?

    Most likely you've paid less than if you were in rented but even if it turns out to have been a bad move in retrospect because of the negative equity now, you dont get to make a one-way bet where if there's negative equity its the lenders fault or if you make a profit, you keep it all. You wouldn't be in favour of the lender taking your positive equity if the situation was reversed.


 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •