Hb - I have enough evidence to verify what broker did wrong

Ae - I was told by friend broker that the broker ought to have been able with their experience to obtain a btl on low interest. That's the issue. Ought. But didnt

 Valuation - that's an interesting point.

Borrowers have no choice but have to pay for the report.

I'd used a firm before (for diff poss lender) and the broker/ lender advised to use same valuation firm.  T

he valuer did not do another site visit. He rewrote an earlier one. He used the same valuation figure for writing the earlier report as a potential FH tenure but changed the tenure to LH (which is what the charge was to be for).  That turned out to be an issue - as the next valuation the lender did post repo was 30% lower.  

Its all a huge minefield.

The valuer before drawdown said it was worth £x.  Ironically I argued it should be worth more.  Then couldn't sell. 

Post repo the next prof valuation was 30% lower.  Then the immediate offer post repo was 32% lower.  Lender did not accept. 

In the following year everyone saw it was sticking, so any potential buyer interest was at 40% lower.  Lender then agreed to sell - contracts out.  But they then walked from the sale. 

All sorts of other stuff then happened to here we are now, still unsold. 

The other stuff is a distraction from my broker issue - but included the lender pretty much bull-dozing the property instead of selling it - which obviously then involved legal action.  The lender alleged they had 'added value'  but that falls flat when it remains unsold.

Its hard to explain all that has happened (its so much)  But I believe it does all stem from being given wrong advice by a professional broker. 

I may have possibly ended up with other problems down the line via a btl  (who knows) but - with a proper lender - I doubt i would have had the problems I have had with this bridge lender.   

As there have been so many legal actions - with evidence disclosed - I have had unique access to docs and emails that one would not normally be privy to see. 

The whole shebang is supposed to head to trial (soon)  I'm pretty sure the otherside don't want any of this coming in to the public domain - the evidence of their bad behaviour is so damning!  They've asked to adjourn

the rental prohibition was because the broker added the 'exit strategy' was sale.  He knew I wanted a btl.  He rushed the bridge through and I agreed. It solved a pressing issue of possible repo from existing lender - but actually made the situation worse.

The broker then abandoned me. No btl.  Forced to sell.  And just couldn't.  Price?   Had 1 offer in 1y.  Had various interest in 2nd year - but no-one proceeded to exchange.  Had firm commitment at good good price in 3rd year - but that fell away due to repo.  The lender has failed to sell in the last 5y.  They had an immediate opportunity - but chose to follow a different path - which has led to it still unsold after a further 5y+ (and a host of legal claims to boot)

This is an aside comment - is probs a distraction from my broker focus - but when I got the 1st offer I approached the bridge lender, and related the difficulties in selling.  They failed to believe it was so difficult to attract a buyer for a nice property. 

They told me to "invite offers at £x-£y" because they had "extensive research that showed it would achieve between £x-£y".  Which was sad laughable because the agents could not invite anyone to offer any amount.   

This will seem contrary to my other comments but 6y ago I offered the lender the same sum the 1st buyer offered as a f&f for my debt - on the basis friend private finance would settle the sum.  lender refused.  They insisted the property was worth much more.  Of course post-repo they were proved wrong.

 I meant f&f for loan

It was a debate with the broker at the time.  the property was classed as a family home, with additional rental history - not business. 

In the year the broker found a btl lender at 2.49%  I did have a tenant for some months and I was located - on/off - in a different part of the country for work and into the next year too - in company paid -for accommodation.  With the increase of loan I would have had to full-time rent out the property and live elsewhere.  But that was fine. (I had plans) The problem was that the broker put me with a bridge that prohibited rentals - so I couldn't rent/ had to sell.  And then I had no income.    Rules changed - to get a btl I needed a tenant in situ, but I couldn't because of the bridge.  catch22.

Broker was appointed to find a btl.  He then passed me to a colleague to fix a bridge.  I didn't want a bridge.  Even when I was 'forced' to take the bridge I wanted broker to help me switch immediately to a btl.  The trouble is that I then discovered lenders don't like to lend to someone on a bridge. And the broker avoided all my calls.  I have records of this.  For example, his work colleague told me he was out the office all day.  Yet a kid was put straight through to the broker. Kid handed phone over to me and I was then able to speak (very awkward for broker).  But he/ the firm still did nothing.  The problem was that the bridge had created a barrier to any other lender and was monthly increasing the loan by a huge sum.   Its been a disaster.  I was forced to try to sell - and couldn't. The property was repossessed; the lender hasn't sold.  That's >7y on a short-term bridge - for which the lender is still holding me accountable.

The broker's t&cs showed they had 'advised me' - but they didn't follow the strict protocol to have been able to advise me.  The broker filled in the application form on my behalf. I never saw it.  He just emailed me the signature page. He did not carry out checks on my income or affordability etc.

I had a lawyer who had handled the lease extension.  I asked them to handle the refinance because I needed a lawyer.    I think the focus of any potential complaint is about the lack of advice the broker gave when their paperwork stated they gave it.  I do have legal issues with the lender's subsequent behaviour - but that is separate. 

Hi. Sorry for the misunderstanding I already owned the property - had done for a very long time.

The refinance was tied into a s.42 extension.  I had had an old very flexible and accommodating BTL loan - as in the bank lent btl money on a short lease property which had been empty for 2 decades+ and was dilapidated and which they knew couldn't be rented out for ages!  The banks stopped loans like that a long time ago.   Took a couple years to renovate whilst living on the building site. Then rented it to a family for a while whilst went away.  Then moved back in and ad hoc rented it (enough to pay mortgage, bills, live well and pay the tax) / lived in it as a family home for well more than a decade. We stayed somewhere else for free when it was rented out/ or went traveling.

The extension cost a lot more than expected. But I still wanted a btl and to keep it not sell it.  Ltv was very low. The extension cost made it higher. But there was still tons of equity.  The historic rentals proved it was a good rental property.  The renowned professional broker should have been able to get me a btl.  It was high value; a lovely property. 

I get I made mistakes. But I got royally screwed on the refinance.  And everything kinda unraveled thereafter.  When I look through the paperwork now in hindsight I am horrified at the amount of money I was charged by alleged professionals.  It's all such a racket.  (The extension process, the valuation, the broker - all money for old rope for these companies).  In my defence my mistakes boiled down to losing my partner and being not right in the head for ages and ages.  (This horrid repo process has also contributed to me not being right in the head - but I'm not blind anymore).  I'm not sure what I want to do now? Or what I could even begin to hope for as a result?  I just feel that I may well have an issue against the broker - because they didn't follow their industry strict protocol.

Thanks. Will check info later

I just checked the last email from them that I printed out. 

It was directing me to a link to files as part of a data SAR (which I never called my request; they did).

The email says the link would expire in 3 months. 

Now my computer crashed later in 19.  I lost a lot of info. I need to check storage for old hard-drives to see if I downloaded and saved whatever info was in the link.  

I have 1 other printed out email from my friend who was a broker.

It was dated apx 6w after my first email to broker. 

Friend was telling me what to include in a letter to compliance dept.  I don't have a printed copy of my letter - so can't remember if was entitled formal complaint - or their reply.  

Will check storage later. 

If I have anything useful I will post

I just checked.

I sent them a very simple email requesting specific docs. I didn't label my request as a SAR.

they replied labelling my request for docs as a SAR. 

There were a few emails between us asking/ answering questions.

They then sent a link to a more full response to my request for docs - probably anticipating a claim given they knew they'd not acted correctly. 

They did mention they considered that a final response.  But I hadn't actually made a formal complaint per se.  

As said before - I got swept down a different path and haven't considered reverting to this (making formal complaint/ claim) until now

I think there's a bit of splitting hairs by the broker. 

They treated my simple request for some docs as if it was a complaint - because they knew my gentle request was a precursor to a complaint.  I did not label a letter as formal complaint.

So would I be able to revert to new correspondence entitled 'formal complaint' ?

Thanks hb. Will read

Would it be best to re-contact broker even tho I did in 19?

That's a good point.   Is one tied in to one broker?  Probably not. 

But I did get a specific email from this particular broker telling me not to use any other broker. 

Assume they all try the same lenders?  This broker wanted the % fee.  

He gave some "explanations" - about 'hard searches' affecting credit score, that lenders would be confused if different brokers being used for same client...  I refrained from using other brokers

If I do contact the fos - what would I reasonably be hoping for as a result of some kind of action - v- broker?

My friend broker originally mentioned full restitution:

for them to put me back to place I was in before they gave 'bad' advice with 'dodgy' paperwork.

Does that sound feasible? Or idealistic?  

The property was repossessed. 

But remains unsold after all these years.

So I guess restitution is possible?  (I mean if I could get it back and get a btl now, I would !)

Altho... maybe there's better solutions given level of interest rates now compared to 2.49% in 16.

HB - yes I agree it is about their paperwork and advice.  I need to be clear in my head what my complaint is.  And what a result looks like for me?

(They should never have placed me with the shark with whom I've had all sorts of issues - but I don't think that's my complaint focus -v-  broker) 

Aesmith - wanted a btl was placed with a bridge. 

The broker did no affordability check, no fact find, no income check, they filled in all the forms - just sent the signature page to sign.

The question was/ is - with a high-paying short-term tenant in situ and a history of other high rentals should they have been able to secure a replacement btl? 

I'd had a btl for donkeys. 

The valuations were way off for the bridge. 

As was discovered down the line.

HB - all sorts of issues have been in court; the main one re repo remains in court, no resolution. 

They all stem really from bad advice by broker. 

I need to keep this simple. To keep stress levels down. I'm still embroiled in other legal stuff.

 I seem to remember the friend broker saying I shouldnt have to issue a court claim - he thought I could lodge a claim to the Ombudsman?  Is that a possible route?  Without going down a possible 2y legal claim path

In terms of "why didn't I make a claim" - well, that has to be understood in the context of the long-standing legal battle and all its permuations with the shark.

In essence there was a repo and probable fire sale of the leasehold property - which would have led to me initiating the complaint/ claim v SPF in summer 19.

But there was no quick sale. And battle commenced and it ain't done yet 5y later.

A potential sale morphed into trying to do a debt deal and then into a full blown battle heading to trial - based on the shark deliberately racking up costs just so the ceo can keep the property for himself. 

Along the way they have launched claims in 4 different counties -v- me - trying to get a backdoor B. (Haven't yet succeeded)

Simultaneously I got dragged into a contentious forfeiture claim and then into a lease extension debacle - both of which lasted 3y. (I have an association with the freeholders and handled all that legal stuff too)

I had some (friend paid for) legal support to begin with.  But mostly I have handled every thing alone.  The sheer weight of all the different cases has been pretty overwhelming. And tedious.  I'm battling an aggressive financial shark that has investors giving them 00s of millions. They've employed teams of expensive lawyers and barristers. And also got juniors doing the boring menial tasks.

And, of course, in text book style they've delayed issues on purpose and then sent 000's of docs to read at the 11th hour. Which I not only boringly did read,  but also simultaneously filed for ease of reference later - which has come in very handy in speeding up collating legal bundles and being able to find evidence quickly.  It's also how I found out the damning stuff I could use -v- them.  Bottom line - I haven't really had a moment to breath for 5y.

I've had to write a statement recently. And asked a clinic for advice. One of the volunteers asked how I got into this situation.  Which prompted me to say it all started when I got bad advice from a broker. Which kick-started me in to thinking I really should look into making some kind of formal complaint -v- the broker.  Which is where I am now.  Extenuating circumstances as to why I'm complaining so late.  But hopefully still in time ??

So - do you mean 6y from when they organised the loan? Because that's more than 7y. 

Or is it 6y from when I was advised what they'd (most likely) done wrong?  Because that's under 6y

Or is it 3y from when I was advised what they'd (most likely) done wrong? Because the 3y expired start 22.

I seriously wasn't happy but I didn't know they'd done anything seriously wrong/ unethical until a friend - who is a broker - had a look at all the papers in March 19. He then said I should send them a SAR. Which I did.  Which is when/where they admitted some of the things they did wrong.

If I can "do something" - what actually do I do?  What would a "claim" to the FOS look like? 

What's the 3y rule?

In terms of taking action and not doing so - is there a simple "I'm ignorant layperson" response?

What could I possibly do now? next ?

I was trying to be discreet !! But to heck with that now: Savills Private Finance

"broker = spf"

Assume regulated by FCA?

I've been told that "on an advised basis" means they are liable. But I'm not a broker or expert.  I think it means they are professional brokers and under their professional hat they advised a client - but didn't follow protocol

I complained to broker.

They admitted they didn't do due diligence.

But said it was up to me to follow up with the authorities. 

I was inundated with legal stuff for last 5y.

And wasn't sure about how or if I could pursue them or if that may have affected my legal path. 

Im just re-looking at the injustice of it all.

And wondering if I can pursue them now - within the 6y of being told what they did was wrong

This is the 1st post I made about the broker in March 19:

Borrower sends in a SAR to broker. 
* Turns out the broker did not act correctly. 
* They did no fact find;
* have no Suitability letter;
* they did not fill out an income and affordability form,
* they filled in the application form on behalf of the borrower
* they just emailed the signature page for borrower to sign
* so borrower had no sight of what the application form contained;
* the broker did the same for the Terms
* just sent the signature page for borrower to sign. 
* The broker did all this on an "Advised" basis.

Also - is it possible to launch simultaneous claims -v- different 3rd parties?

I mean I'm a) asking about can I make a claim against the broker who should never have placed me with the shark.  But b) can I also simultaneously make a claim against a lawyer for negligence in the litigation process v the shark ? (By claim -v- lawyer I really mean that I intend to complain to the SRA about breach of their principles and ask for their help in getting compensation for him totally screwing up my case)

Hi

Am just re-visiting a point I raised 5y ago (mentioned in this thread on page 4) - at the beginning of what has become the most convoluted litigation since Dicken's Jarndyce & Jarndyce.

I have been veritably screwed by everyone in the last 5y.  But I haven't given up trying to get restitution where I legally can.

Today's point refers to the broker who was asked to find a lender for my property in spring 16.

The broker found a high street bank offering 2.49%/annual interest on a BTL loan in May 16.  But the bank then raised issues about the property valuation and my affordability.  Despite having a tenant in situ (for 4 months) paying enough rent to cover the annual loan.

The broker then found a different lender (aka shark) - which organized a different valuer on their panel who valued it much higher than the high street bank - and which was offering 1%/ month interest on a bridge loan in Nov 16.

If the broker alleged affordability issues at 2.49% - why did they place me with a lender at 12% ? 

Yes I know I signed the docs and went ahead - but there seemed to be mitigating circumstances compelling me to sign. The prime one being that my lender at the time was threatening repossession.  Of course, fast forward 2y and the new bridge lender repossessed anyway.  Whilst in the meantime the broker had taken 1.5% fee for the bridge rather than 1% fee for the BTL.   And when the property was marketed post-repo it was put up for sale at the lower BTL lender valuation.  In other words I was set up to fail.

My main question regarding this is - Can I re-visit making a claim again the broker?   It's 5y since I discovered the broker never did a fact find or suitability check.  So it's under the SB 6y.  I sent a SAR in Mar 19 and they admitted their mistakes - but then tried to say they consider the matter closed unless I want to take it to LO.  I was super stressed with so much legal stuff going on over the years that I just pushed to one side any thought of making a challenge against the broker via the LO or FCA.

Fast forward another 5y and the property remains unsold.  I'm still embroiled in legal battles with the shark lender (about how/why it's not sold) and heading to trial. But as its recently been adjourned I am wondering if now is the time to tackle the broker again?  Try to get some kind of restitution?

The broker was a renowned professional (spf) and with all their resources should have been able to source another BTL at a low % rate.

Any thoughts on this?  Or dead duck?

OK thanks dx

hello dx.  Yes it relates to the ridiculously long and convoluted thread (that is currently closed/ locked) about my various lender issues  and lease/freehold.  Same lender.  Just a different query

I have a t&cs query. As in - I was never sent them so can they be binding on me?

I am in the midst of lengthy property litigation.  One of the points the Claimant makes is that their "General t&cs" includes a "no-set-off" clause.  They state that what ever counterclaim I have is irrelevant because this clause prevents me trying to off-set £s against their claim. They have included pages and pages of their "General t&cs" in a large appendix in their pleadings - which I had never before seen. Within the pages there is this "no-set-off" clause.. 

I am a litigant in person, with occasional free legal help.   Going through their pleadings I realised the appendix and their "General t&cs" and its no-set-off clause had never been pleaded by the Claimant before last Autumn 23.  The last pro-bono counsel I briefly used did not question it either.   So I've checked all the original loan documentation and emails/ letters sent by them to me and my lawyers at the time (8y ago).   I've discovered that they never sent and thus I had never received the lender's "General t&cs".    The Lender sent a "Conditional Mortgage Offer" and a "Binding Loan Offer" - both of which contained a long list of t&cs specific to my loan - BUT did not include a "no-set-off" clause.   100% the Lender or their Lawyers never sent or included their "General t&cs" in any communication   However, one page in the Conditional Mortgage Offer refers to the "General t&cs". It contains the following:

I/we agree to the t&cs as set out in this Conditional Mortgage Offer document and the included General Mortgage Terms and associated Tariff of Charges

I/ we understand that the conditions will not become binding on use until the Mortgage Offer conditions have been met and the the Lender has issued the Binding Offer Letter and I/we have communicated our acceptance of this to the Lender

The Lender is not bound by the t&cs of this Conditional Mortgage Offer until such time as I/we have satisfied to the Lender's express satisfaction, the Mortgage Conditions, as set out in this document, and the Lender has issued its Binding Offer Letter.  There is no obligation on the Lender to fund the mortgage application under the terms set out until the Binding Offer Letter is issued.  The Lender can at its discretion, withdraw this Conditional Mortgage Offer at any time before issue of a Binding Offer Letter

I/we confirm that I/we have received legal advice regarding the t&cs of this mortgage offer document, its attending General T&Cs and Tariff of Charges

What does "attending General T&Cs mean?

The Lender sent me the conditional offer, the binding offer and the Legal Charge - none of which included this "no-set-off" clause.  They also sent me the Tariff of Charges together with a welcome letter.  But they never sent me the "General t&cs" - despite them being referred to in bold as above.

Throughout the litigation the Lender has sneakily tried to circumvent the law.  Are they trying to introduce something into proceedings hoping I wouldn't notice they don't apply because they never included them?  Or can they refer to this clause?

TW internal account # change happened end 2021. 

I have remaining queries relating to post #23 onwards

- but the posting today really is focusing on me telling TW they made errors end 2021. 

It's a lot of money in dispute

The thread I started today has been merged with earlier posts re TW. 

But for clarity the 1st posts up to #12 were not about my TW issues - I was helping a friend.

Ironically TW disappeared and he hasn't received a single TW bill ever since - not in 15y!  Not sure why.  Water isn't included in block Service charges.

The posts then up to #21 were mine and sorted. 

The recent issues relate to posts from #23

Was just re-reading the Sols letter.  They refer to section 35a of the senior courts act 1981 which, when I read up on this, says they are entitled to claim interest at 8%.  They have calculated this % for 10y.   I assume my position that the loan sum is SB - due to no £ payments ever made or claimed in the 10y period - still stands ??