How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Buachaill Your Own Question
Buachaill
Buachaill, Barrister
Category: Republic of Ireland Law
Satisfied Customers: 10623
Experience:  Barrister 17 years experience
53108719
Type Your Republic of Ireland Law Question Here...
Buachaill is online now

Hi i had a mortgage with a lender in 06, i then ran into some

Resolved Question:

Hi
i had a mortgage with a lender in 06, i then ran into some financial difficulties, i wanted to get a consolidation loan to pay off unsecured loans. i went to a mortgage brokers ,they got me a mortgage with a sub prime lender to cover my loans and still had equity in home. the brokers told me that i would only be on this sub-prime loans for 1 year and then return to a main stream lender. for the next 3 years they said that they couldnt get me back on to mainstream lenders then the brokers went out of business in 09 when the economy went bust , and the credit crunch happened. i have been on this sub prime interest only mortgage since then, i can no longer afford the mortgage and the arrears are building up frighteningly fast .
would I have any legal case to claim a mis sold mortgage even though the brokers that sold it are no longer in business?
Submitted: 3 years ago.
Category: Republic of Ireland Law
Expert:  Buachaill replied 3 years ago.

Buachaill :

1. I regret to say that you don't have a cause of action against the mortgage brokers, even if they were in business or you could get the benefit of any insurance cover they might have. This is because you voluntarily signed up to the subprime lender's terms. Additionally, any representation the mortgage brokers might have made to you about getting you to return to a mainstream lender after one year was not a binding promise. In order for a promise to be binding you have essentially have something of value flowing between the parties. Here there was merely a bare representation and nothing more which would give rise to legal liability. A representation is not automatically binding. Neither are all bare promises enforceable contracts. Here you have nothing you can sue upon, as it was only a representation as to future conduct. A mere puff. Not legally binding.

Buachaill and other Republic of Ireland Law Specialists are ready to help you