The claimants had acted on mortgage advice given by a company regulated by the FSA, as a result of which, on the collapse of the property market in Spain, they had lost their investment and their home which had been charged to assist in the purchase of it. The company giving the advice had not been insured, and they now sought compensation from the defendant, appealling against rejection of their claim.
Held: The appeal failed. The judge was correct to find that the FSCS had erred in its approach by nor seeing that the whole thing was one indivisible arangement central to which was the charging of the claimant’s home, and in particular that the advice to take on an interest only charge exposed her to unnecessary risk.
Moore-Bick, Sullivan, Underhill LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 729
Bailii
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 213
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd, ex Parte Bowden and Another HL 18-Jul-1995
A regulated firm, Fisher Prew-Smith, ran a scheme whereby elderly homeowners were persuaded to invest money in equity-linked funds by mortgaging their homes on terms that the interest would roll up unless and until the total mortgage debt reached a . .
Appeal from – Emptage v Financial Services Compensation Scheme Ltd Admn 11-Oct-2012
The claimant had on her mortgage adviser’s advice charged her existing property to purchase property in Spain. After the investment failed, she lost the house. On the financial failure of the adviser without being insred, she claimed against the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Financial Services
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.510910