MortgagesDec 1 2015

Fos tells widow ‘your husband, not your adviser, misled you’

Search supported by
Fos tells widow ‘your husband, not your adviser, misled you’

The Financial Ombudsman Service has told a widow there is no evidence that Intrinsic Mortgage Planning knew her husband was borrowing more money than he had told her about.

A client, referred to as Mrs M, complained about an appointed representative of Intrinsic Mortgage Planning.

In her complaint and in a letter from her solicitors to the Financial Conduct Authority, she initially said IMP acted for her late husband in obtaining a bank loan, secured by a mortgage on their jointly-owned house, which she knew nothing about.

After her husband’s death she discovered the mortgage and that there were extensive arrears. The house was sold and the whole of the sale proceeds were used to repay the bank.

IMP said its fact-find recorded that Mrs M and her husband had attended a meeting and were looking to remortgage their house to raise money to repay unsecured debt.

It also recorded that the client owned an outright holiday home value of £175,000 and intended to use this as a vehicle to repay loan in addition to savings accumulated from his income.

The fact find also stated the client intended making capital repayments to the account within five to seven years and the additional borrowing would be used to repay a small credit card debt, but mainly to assist with the purchase of additional property as an investment.

Any additional property would also be considered as a vehicle to repay mortgage, the fact find stated.

IMP said it had recommended a mortgage and provided a key facts illustration, pointing out that the bank would not have accepted the application for a joint mortgage without both signatures on the application form.

The bank had issued a mortgage offer which was sent directly to Mrs M and her husband on 29 May 2007.

Their legal representative in respect of the joint re-mortgage would also have required both their signatures in order to complete the transaction, IMP noted.

IMP said it had asked the bank for copies of the documentation but the bank was unable to provide this information. The firm refused to uphold the complaint, stating Mrs M was at the meeting, had provided her passport and signed the joint application form for the re-mortgage.

Mrs M responded that the signature on the application had been forged and that she did not receive the key facts illustration or any other letter from IMP, or a mortgage offer from the bank.

However, following referral of the complaint to the Fos, Mrs M changed her position.