Mortgage Mismanagement Compensation Guide

*. Timeline and Failures • October *: Miss Jeanette Rance took out a mortgage with Preferred Mortgages, with the inclusion of an ASU insurance policy, as evidenced by documents and client insistence at the time. She was clear that she would only proceed with the loan if insurance was included. • November *: A revised mortgage offer was issued which did include a document referencing the ASU

policy. However, this policy was never activated in Preferred’s internal systems. • *–*: Miss Rance made monthly payments including what appears to be ASU premiums. No insurance confirmation, policy number, or welcome pack was ever sent. • *: Miss Rance fell seriously ill and was unable to work. She attempted to claim on the ASU policy but was repeatedly told there was no such policy in place. As a result, she fell into arrears. • *–*: A possession order was granted, and the home remained under long-term threat. Miss Rance suffered significant psychiatric injury, became socially isolated, and had to rely on Adele Rance for all financial, care, and advocacy matters. • *: Following a DSAR request, Acenden claimed they had shared relevant documents, but crucial files regarding ASU remained missing. Repeated phone complaints were

denied or ignored. • *: Following a renewed DSAR and regulatory complaint, documents containing ASU references were finally provided. These documents were the first clear confirmation of the policy’s existence. • *–*: All complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service failed to deliver redress. New legal representation is now being sought to pursue claims through the courts. *. Contractual and Regulatory Breaches • Breach of Contract: The ASU policy was included in the contractual offer, but never set up. This constitutes a material breach of terms. • Negligent Misrepresentation: The lender repeatedly denied the existence of the policy when clear documentary evidence later showed it was intended and included. • Failure to Honour ASU Cover: Miss Rance was deprived of a financial safety net at the moment of need, despite paying for it. • Unfair Treatment of a Vulnerable Customer:

Despite her health status and disability, Miss Rance was denied due consideration, support, or fair complaint handling. • Data Protection & DSAR Breaches: Documents were delayed, withheld, and key evidence was only disclosed years after formal requests. • Regulatory Failure: Despite multiple complaint outcomes, the underlying issue was never addressed, and redress has been persistently avoided. *. ASU Policy Documentation – Confirmed Evidence The following documents confirm the inclusion of ASU in the mortgage arrangement: *. Underwriting Control Sheet (*) – clearly lists ‘ASU’ as part of the mortgage. *. November * Mortgage Offer – includes terms relating to ASU insurance. *. Broker Submission Forms – includes ticked or initialed boxes confirming the insurance was selected. *. * DSAR Disclosures – contain internal notes referencing ASU inclusion. *. Customer Correspondence

from *–* – references to the policy being part of the loan package. *. Complaint letters from * and * – confirm that ASU-related documents were withheld for years. *. Phone notes released in * – show Miss Rance raising ASU claims in *–* and being denied. *. GP Letter (*) – confirms psychiatric treatment linked to housing and financial stress arising from loss of ASU benefit. *. Overview of Losses and Redress Being Sought Miss Jeanette Rance: Approx. £*,*,* • Missed ASU payout, lost earnings, pension loss, psychiatric injury, unlawful charges, loss of dignity, human rights breaches. Adele Rance: Approx. £*,* • Administrative burden, lost earning potential, emotional toll, care duties. Total: ~£*,*,*.

Not yet, do you think the figures of compensation are achievable

What would the compensation figures expected for this be?

Is * achievable

No I have a solicitor

How much shold we expect for this type of case

Would *.5m or * be more appropriate

Is this in line with figures usually sought in cases like this or are we aiming too high