Responsible Lending - NOT

regularsaver1

Here, here

insurance is another one - ie ppi. if someone wants to cancel then they must have been mis-sold it - this is NOT always the case. it could be a case of change mind. the adviser is not always to blame, and charges on bank acc's. some people get charged cause they miss payments, but its the banks fault is it - NO.

The poster looks like she/he did take the money, so why complaining? they may have based it on their bank history as an existing customer. could have said No.

Garry_Anderson

For clarification:

People should be responsible for their actions - but not when they are conned by corrupt advisors who are only interested in getting commision.

There should also be safeguards built in for those poor people (some would call them thicko's) who don't know when to stop borrowing.

regularsaver1

Not everyone gets commision

I think some checks should be made. i mean straight away if someone is not working, alarm bells should stop application.

MortgageMamma

Finally I'm seeing people thinking along my lines. perhaps my original post is too harsh and accusatory. however I am sick to death of doing debt consol mortgages for people who have spents thousands of pounds on nothing. Yes I do get commission for them but as every advisor here knows, only mortgages in particular you tend to earn every penny paid on meagre proc fee's. The overspenders rarely have anything to show for it. don't get me wrong, part of me feels sorry for them, but they should never have spent the money in the first place. Most of them don't even know why they have done it. A good bit of the process is the relief when they complete knowing their outgoings have stabilised. But how many of them do you reckon go out and do the same thing again? Most of them I'd say.

As for conned corrupt advisors. There can't be many of them about surely with the current level of regulation?

Ian_W

MortgageMamma wrote: As for conned corrupt advisors. There can't be many of them about surely with the current level of regulation?

What regulation is that then? When someone qualified like yourself seems to think that it's OK, well great really, that an "advisor" for a major lender should actually be encouraging a customer to put short term purchases like a holiday on a long term credit like a mortgage, cos they're only trying to sell after all - I doubt that regulation exists in more than name only in the mindset of the financial services industry.

And where is it written that responsible lending and personal responsibility for debt are mutually exlusive? Of course the individual is responsible for the debt they take on - but the lender also has some responsibility IF they are encouraging people to use a mortgage to pay for every day purchases, or consolidation of what otherwise might be very short term debt. That's why mortgages are regulated, not to absolve people of personal responsibility, to ensure that lending institutions act responsibly too and don't mis-sell products.

Ember, I'm in a similar position to you but can't for the life of me understand why you think responsible lending would have any negative impact on your "priviledged" position. Surely one thing that would qualify as responsible is lending to someone with an excellent credit rating/history? And you getting a mortgage within 24 hours [though why that's so important is also beyond me] is more to do with efficiency than responsibility.

Like MortgageMamma I dislike the compo culture but isn't the example the OP quoted far more likely to lead to a jusifiable claim, in terms of trying solicit customers to use an inappropriate form of credit to purchase a holiday?

When the financial services industry has all the credibility of modern day horse traders due to past indiscretions I'd have thought those in the industry would have been keener than anyone to condem irresponsible actions - but no, sadly, you can't blame someone for selling is the reply.

Shakes head in disbelief and exits stage left mumbling ...... :mad:

Ember999

Ian_W wrote:

Ember, I'm in a similar position to you but can't for the life of me understand why you think responsible lending would have any negative impact on your "priviledged" position. Surely one thing that would qualify as responsible is lending to someone with an excellent credit rating/history? And you getting a mortgage within 24 hours [though why that's so important is also beyond me] is more to do with efficiency than responsibility.

Hi Ian W :hello:

Regards to the 24 hour mortgage I wasn't saying I either wanted it passed that quick nor that I expected it. I was rather shocked it was sorted that quick actually, though I have to admit to being very pleased

I was merely pointing out that someone who handles credit well should be able to have a mortgage/loan/credit card passed quickly etc without undue checks that could occur if all lenders penalise everybody due to bad debtors, non-payers, people who borrow more than they can afford etc. I think the onus should be placed on the borrower rather than the lender.
Do you understand where I am coming from now?

Ember x

Ian_W

Ember,
Our positions are not too far apart [NOW THERE'S A THOUGHT ON A FRIDAY NIGHT ] on this one. But responsible lending doesn't have to be restrictive lending.

What got me on this one is that the OP is offered more money than she asked for and the advisor suggests she might use it for a holiday. With a quarter of a century to pay for it, gives "holiday of a lifetime" a whole new meaning! Then MortgageMamma jumps in without, IMO, engaging brain saying you can't blame ' em for trying to sell - so what is mortgage regulation all about then? How long before there's a whole series of threads on mortgage mis-selling?

Because what really p1sses me off about endowment mis-selling, bad debt and any future financial services scandals, is who pays for it? Not the advisor - they've got their commission and done a runner. The bad debtor probably can't pay all of it. So the Banks and Insurers will get it back one way or t'other from Mr & Mrs responsible borrower - that's you & me BTW. :eek:

So the individual is responsible - but if it goes wrong the rest of us pick up the tab. _pale_ :doh: :wall:

david29dpo

hear hear!

Garry_Anderson

Ian W wrote, "...if it goes wrong the rest of us pick up the tab".

Not only that - but the inept and criminally negligent policing by FSA is financed by us - the customers.

The Financial Services Authority are responsible for protection of consumers and reducing financial crime.

And guess who pays the massive fines that corrupt firms pay to them when they caught out - e.g. Abbey National fined £800,000 for mishandling mortgage endowment complaints?

Yep - the fines are passed on to us as well.

The real perversity is that customers are screwed by corrupt finance companies and then their customers pay their fines for them.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=4722&page=47&p=1545526

I have documented evidence of my dealings with the FSA and Serious Fraud Office that prove them for what they are in this major cover-up.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=12185&highlight=fraud

Barney088

Names left out to protect me against slander but I am a mortgage advisor and I hold high morals about what I do and what I sell, like most people on this site I guess. I don't charge a fee and find it amussing to discuss this with colleagues and listen to the many reasons they come out with to justify it.

The point is there are comments here about regulation etc. and that the consumer should be well protected. I know from first hand experience, a training course I was sent on, that there are techniques out there to maximise earnings on cases.

I was shown the "art" of disturbance selling, reminding parents about little Jonny, what would happen to him if you died. I was told how to "churn" life policies (getting people to close their old one and take a new one with me) I was also advised to always make the mortgage quote about £10K more than the clients wanted and surprise them with how cheap this borrowing is.

The "trainer" said on a number of occasions "if anyone has a tape recorder, now is the time to turn it off" Needless to say I left the course before it finished and never darkend their door again. It left me in a position where I had to restart my self employment and put me six months back, with no income. However like most people on the site would be, I was disgusted with the attitude and tactis for income growth. Each mortgage deal "should be £1500 or you are doing something wrong"

Upselling is a part of this process and it cannot be defended if done for the reasons mentioned above.

All the people doing this are regulated and have all passed their exams.