View more on these topics

Pensioners sue Godiva over self-cert interest-only mortgage


Godiva Mortgages is being sued by two pensioners for more than £400,000 over a self-certified interest-only mortgage deal that went sour.

The loan was taken out on a £650,000 house in Surrey where Norma Mason, 79, and her husband Robert Mason, 78, say they have lived for 40 years.

On 1 February 2008, the Masons got a £487,500 interest-only self-cert remortgage with Coventry Building Society arm Godiva, according to High Court documents.

The Masons got the deal through broker Access Business Finance.

The couple kept up the monthly interest payments, but when the mortgage ended in 2013 they claim they had no way of repaying Godiva the bulk of the mortgage.

The couple qualified for a self-cert loan because they were classed as self-employed due to owning property development company Mason Homes.

Godiva says the Mason’s application form says they earned £200,000 a year joint income from Mason Homes the year before the mortgage, qualifying them for the large loan.

However, the Masons claim Mason Homes actually made no profit in the period, that Godiva should not have lent to them and that they are now out of pocket.

The couple says the lender did not check their ability to repay and did not account for their age or their status as retirees.

The couple say Godiva owe them a duty of care and should act in their best interests.

The court papers say Godiva “failed to exercise all proper skill and care, diligence and competence that was demanded of it as a reasonably competent lender”.

The Masons are suing Godiva for around £593,000. This figure includes the original mortgage amount, plus interest.

Godiva’s defence says it believed the Masons were property investors with a joint income of £200,000 in the year before the loan and that it had no reason to doubt this.

It adds: “Since the remortgage application was a self-certification application, the defendant was not obliged to verify this income.”

Godiva adds that is ran credit and bankruptcy checks on the Masons, and was satisfied with the results.

The lender also says that the Masons could sell the property and repay the loan, and that the couples’ loss is their fault.

The lender says the Masons took out the loan with advice from Access Business Finance, and that the couple signed a form stating the broker was not an agent of the lender.

Godiva’s defence papers say the lender was not responsible for the advice the Masons received.

Additionally, the Masons say an electronic application form listed their income as £200,000 a year but that a hard copy left the field blank, which Godiva did not pick up on.

But Godiva says it did not get a hard copy until the Masons filed a claim against it in 2013.

Godiva’s defence concludes by saying the lender reserves the right to start possession proceedings against the Masons if the couple does not repay the cash owed under the mortgage contract.

The Masons started suing Godiva in April 2013 and the case has its first court date on 9 May.

Coventry Building Society had not responded to requests for comment by the time of publication.


Don’t play chicken with the Bank of Japan

By Josh Ausden, Head of Client Investment Strategy, Neptune Short-term yen strength has hurt the Neptune Japan Opportunities Fund but recent events have only added weight to our conviction that the Bank of Japan will act to ease policy, boosting multinationals’ profits and weakening the yen. In recent weeks the performance of the Japanese stockmarket […]

Europe: Nursery slopes

After a flat year for European equities, in which the Artemis European Growth Fund outperformed, manager Philip Wolstencroft is (cautiously) optimistic about 2016.


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up
  • Post a comment
  • Andy Wilson 10th April 2017 at 4:46 pm

    If Godiva lose this case the flood gates will swing open for every interest only self-cert borrower to challenge their requirement to pay the mortgage. And the race will be on for mortgage brokers with some years’ experience to switch career and become ambulance chasing bite-the-hand-that-once-fed-it claims managers and earn lucrative fees for a few years.

    Unfortunately for those of us with eyes on a more comfortable retirement, this case fundamentally cannot fail for the lender as it then challenges every mortgage over the last 20 years where borrowers claim they borrowed too much, or where they had no way of paying it off at the end of a very short term, or where the lender allowed them to falsify their incomes one way or another. The broker community will not be immune from the fallout either.

    The only good news of such a process is that payment protection claims will cease overnight; mortgages are much bigger fish to fry and the pond will be huge.

    Edited by Mortgage Strategy editor Rebekah Commane for legal reasons

    • Matt Daw 25th September 2017 at 2:09 pm

      I cant believe this story. Worse still, the case is not even settled but the legal bill is £240,000? The pensioners don’t even have a qualified lawyer, and he’s challenging a law firm who can get a result in favour of the bank after charging half the amount for the mortgage balance! Wonder if the pensioners have OJ Simpson’s first lawyer!