Fraudulent Mortgage Broker

S8NDS

thanks HelpWhereIcan I will do some more research and see what else I can dig up x

dunstonh

I agree (for what little that means ) - self cert does seem a strange choice.

sophiak

My husbands Bankruptcy debt came up to nearly £50,000.00, our mortgage broker had no problem getting us re-mortgage to pay this off,
£50,000.00 is much much more than 2 or 3 months arrears don't you think? So if we could get one with GMAC why couldn't S8NDS?

It is easy to blame the broker or adviser should I say because they have a duty to advise their client and do what is in their best interest not his own.
I would send the broker a subject access request to see what it contains, I think a lot of brokers main interests are what they get out it then their clients interest, this is my own personnel opinion anyone can differ.

HelpWhereIcan

sophiak wrote: »

My husbands Bankruptcy debt came up to nearly £50,000.00, our mortgage broker had no problem getting us re-mortgage to pay this off,
£50,000.00 is much much more than 2 or 3 months arrears don't you think? So if we could get one with GMAC why couldn't S8NDS?

because GMAC is one of a number of lenders (including Kensington) who had various schemes depending on your credit profile and whether you needed to self cert or not.

GMAC's schemes ranged from Prime (High street) which would allow only very small bits of historic adverse but offered their best rates at up to 95% which matched those offered by high street names; to those who allowed unlimited adverse credit (including day 1 discharged bankruptcy) which charged a much higher rate and could be restricted to no more than 75%. GMAC's habit of loading the rate depending on what you needed (eg 0.5% for any mortgage arrears, 0.25% for self cert etc etc) made them very good for some but not for others.

The original application with GMAC well may have been on their 'prime' or 'near prime' schemes; failed on those schemes and accepted on their 'low adverse' or medium adverse' scheme.

The rates available on the 'low adverse' scheme with GMAC may not have been as good as the equivalent scheme with Kensington so the broker is likely to have done the right thing by looking at the next best deal in the market rather than the next best deal offered by the lender applied to.

I could name a number of lenders who would have offered the op's bf a mortgage based on the details we have - just because GMAC would have done it on one of their schemes does not mean they would have been the best people for the op's bf and it is dangerous to assume that all schemes available from GMAC would have been better than all schemes available from Kensington.

In that respect, the broker may well have done the right thing.

Conrad

To win compensation you will need to prove a loss has been sustained, but I'm minded to think you will struggle as you wont be able to prove a better deal would have been available, as the arrears and I suspect late payments on other items will show that Kensington was a reasonable choice given his circumstances.

Furthermore, Kensingtons deals were often just about as good as prime deals anyway, and I'm finding they are good as retention of existing customers as thier variable rate is low.

You might win if the FOS determine the broker didnt take satisfactory steps to ensure suitability. I do not think the packager have any liability, as it's always the broker who is deemed to have discharged the advice and double check the details.

S8NDS

Hi dunstonh, sophiak, HelpWhereIcan, conrad thanks for your advice I am gonna persere so can at least cast out doubt and have no regrets in the future. I have contacted Kensington and requested a copy of the original credit file I will send a data subject access request with £10 to make sure they send the details. I have managed to get through to the Optoma's liquidators and they will be calling back and I will see if I can send data subject request to the mortgage broker i may have to go throught the fsa firstly). As yet the broker has not sent a copy of the credit check they did. Only a handwritten letter stating my bofriend has a ccj.......................

Thanks for the help thus far x