moved from another thread - Brendan
A similar thing happened to me also. I applied through a broker, broker said I was approved in principle for a tracker, then in July 2008 the broker said that the tracker was no longer available but that SVR was the same product as the tracker. The rate sheet he showed only included SVR and fixed. I did not realize the broker could lie, so I signed.
Few years ago I discovered the trackers were only pulled in October 2008 and complained to the bank. The bank said they had no record of me ever applying for a tracker. When I sent them the copy of the original application form for a tracker mortgage, the bank responded first, that trackers were indeed available to me but they did not have to offer them and that second, the broker amended the application and opted for SVR, dated the day before or same day he informed me that a tracker was not available. I asked but the broker refused to provide any information whatsoever.
I get it, no case for FSO. If I understand correctly, consumer protection code is just advisory. I signed, case closed, and contract tramps disclosure requirements under CPC. But I signed on the basis of a false information. What I have is the application for a tracker, a letter from the bank compliance dept that the broker amended the application, and the fact that the SVR rate was higher than a tracker rate at that time. But I cannot prove that it was not me who knowingly chose the inferior product that was also more expensive, I did not tape the lying broker. I have no clue why a supposedly independent broker acted in the interests of the bank.
It is an old thread, and I only saw it now, but Raging Bull is not the only one who was blatantly lied to. Pity we cannot do anything about it.
A similar thing happened to me also. I applied through a broker, broker said I was approved in principle for a tracker, then in July 2008 the broker said that the tracker was no longer available but that SVR was the same product as the tracker. The rate sheet he showed only included SVR and fixed. I did not realize the broker could lie, so I signed.
Few years ago I discovered the trackers were only pulled in October 2008 and complained to the bank. The bank said they had no record of me ever applying for a tracker. When I sent them the copy of the original application form for a tracker mortgage, the bank responded first, that trackers were indeed available to me but they did not have to offer them and that second, the broker amended the application and opted for SVR, dated the day before or same day he informed me that a tracker was not available. I asked but the broker refused to provide any information whatsoever.
I get it, no case for FSO. If I understand correctly, consumer protection code is just advisory. I signed, case closed, and contract tramps disclosure requirements under CPC. But I signed on the basis of a false information. What I have is the application for a tracker, a letter from the bank compliance dept that the broker amended the application, and the fact that the SVR rate was higher than a tracker rate at that time. But I cannot prove that it was not me who knowingly chose the inferior product that was also more expensive, I did not tape the lying broker. I have no clue why a supposedly independent broker acted in the interests of the bank.
It is an old thread, and I only saw it now, but Raging Bull is not the only one who was blatantly lied to. Pity we cannot do anything about it.
Last edited by a moderator: