The time line is like this:
Input 1. --> Customer looks for tracker.
Input 2. --> Lender approves for a tracker, the broker says it is the best deal, a customer stays with the broker
Input 3. --> Broker informs the customer the tracker was no longer available
Input 34. --> Customer asks the broker to contact the bank and ask why, the broker confirms it is not available
Output ---> Customer signs on an SVR because the customer believes he has no other options.
Ok. Thank you for finally spelling out what happened.
Let's break this right down:-
1. You understood the difference between a tracker and an SVR.
2. You applied for a tracker and initially it was indicated that this would be available to you but you didn't enter into a loan agreement at this stage.
3. It was subsequently indicated to you that the tracker option was no longer available.
4. You asked your broker to double-check this with the bank.
5. He indicated that he did so and confirmed to you that the tracker option was no longer available to you.
6. You decided to enter into an SVR loan agreement and you drew down your loan on this basis.
So what possible motivation would your broker have to lie to you? What plausible reason would he have to misrepresent the true position?
The obvious explanation is simply that the tracker option was simply no longer available to you. Unless you can point to anything at all that would indicate that the broker misrepresented the factual position you would have to conclude that there was no such misrepresentation.
No lie, no trap and no conspiracy.