Great news for a British pensioner who has just won his equity release case against Jyske Bank and SEB Life.
In a 20-page ruling, the judge in Court 5 of Fuengirola has determined that the equity release contract entered into by the claimant and the named defendants, through Offshore Money Managers (OMM), has to be rendered null and void due to gross miselling and violation of public policy.
According to the ruling the following happened:
All publicity communicated to the plaintiff by OMM staff revolves around the enormous benefits for a foreign pensioner with a house in Spain and without a prior mortgage, and that JYSKE BANK grants a fresh new mortgage loan and delivers the amount of the same -except for a small amount derived from the pensioner- to an investment fund previously selected by the lender. And correlatively, the disadvantage that means not doing so, given the extremely burdensome progressivity of IHT (Inheritance Tax) concluding that, if nothing is done, they could be end up paying taxes of up to 81.60% of the value of the home, or its tax base.
The judge also determined that the insurance policy did not comply with the minimum standards for it to be classed as real insurance, demanding the following:
…that the insurer assumes a certain risk, that the contract has an actuarial basis and that there is adequacy between the content of the contract and the profile of the policyholder.
The Court has now ordered the land registry to remove the mortgage loan and for SEB Insurance to refund the policy sum.
Lawbird Legal Services have been the lawyers acting for the claimant.
What I don’t understand Antonio Flores is why you can’t represent all the clients under one class action suit. The exact same contracts were signed with OMM and Jykse Bank by many pensioners including my mother whom you have been saying for 10 years you’d get her some recompense and her property returned to her sole name. If it can happen in one case why is the Supreme Court not ruling it for all. I also was under the impression when my mother paid you your fee that she was part of a group claim.
Dear Fiona,
It is not possible to always represent all clients under one class action, there are many factors that influence this:
– The timing of the claim: to have a class action you need to have claimants willing to file a case jointly, at a same time. In respect to Jyske, our clients approached us in different moments in time.
– Courts: Not all tribunals accept joint class actions, the reason being that on miselling claims plaintiffs can be categorized differently based on their profiles (non-experienced or experienced investors) and therefore, what may apply to one claimant may be dismissed for another one. Our firm has filed several class actions of which 2 were accepted by the Courts and with positive result. We did file others where the Courts understood that it would not possible to join claimants, and they should each file independently.
– Defendants: there are instances where not all the defendants are the same since, for example, the introducing agent can be different in which case, there isnt an identity of defendants for all claimants.
When we took one your mother we had not envisaged bringing a class action.
Happy to clarify other points you might have.
Regards