Log in here for full access to all our great content

The estate of Mr C complains that the firm didn’t treat Mr C fairly when it gave him advice in respect of three equity release mortgages. Further, the estate considers that the firm ought to have done more when he approached it for a fourth application, knowing that Mr C was likely the victim of a scam. All four of the equity release applications were made within one year. The Ombudsman felt that the broker should have asked more probing questions and should not have advised the third equity release. Complaint upheld.

AMI comments: Brokers should be mindful of repeat customers within a short time span and make sure they are asking probing questions during fact find sessions.

Mr C and Miss N complain that they were misadvised by their mortgage broker, an appointed representative of the firm. He said a survey was free with their mortgage, but it wasn’t, they didn’t get one, and the property had expensive faults. In this case the words ‘survey’ and ‘valuation’ were used interchangeably by the broker with no further clarification as to the difference given. The Ombudsman agreed that the broker should have been clearer but also felt that there was no guarantee that the customer would have acted any differently based on the survey results. Complaint upheld.

AMI comments: Brokers need to be clear and deliberate with their choice of words so as to avoid confusion.

Mr and Mrs P complain that they were wrongly advised by the firm, and because of this, they ended up paying much more for their mortgage. During the application there was a change of property, the lender would not honour the interest rate on the new property and a complaint was filed with the lender. Following this the lender did agree to honour the rate and allow the application to proceed, this was confirmed in a single letter that the firm did not receive. The mortgage offer then expired. The Ombudsman did not feel that it was the responsibility of the firm to chase down a complaint response they assumed would go back to the customer. Complaint not upheld.

AMI comments: Brokers should be mindful of how they manage client expectations and set out clear guidelines of responsibility.

Mr A1 and his father, Mr A2, complain that the firm made an error in their mortgage application and that the product didn’t meet their requirements. The two key elements relevant to what’s being complained about here are that they wanted a Joint Borrower Sole Proprietor (JBSP) mortgage and to have a two-year fixed rate. The mortgage application needed to be resubmitted due to the offer expiring and at this time the JBSP was missed, additionally the 2 year fixed deal was not two years from the point of completion. The Ombudsman agrees that it is likely that the firm had not keyed the application in correctly and missed off the JBSP, however they feel that the documentation provided to Mr A1 and Mr A2 did make the term of the fixed rate clear. Complaint upheld.

AMI comments: Firms should keep a close eye on the details of applications, especially when rebroking an existing offer or resubmitting after the expiry of an initial offer.