Local News -Lie to Buy sentenced :P

silvercar

macaque wrote:

I would have expected the discussion on this subject to have dwelt on the gravity of this offence.

Your joking, right?

murder, rape, paedos, armed robbery............................................mortgage fraud.

Hardly in the same league.

Pennywise

lostinrates wrote: »

I don't know how self cert works

Basically it is a conspiracy between borrowers and lenders. Borrowers should be honest, but many aren't because their income multiples on true figures didn't stack up. Lenders were desperate to lend to keep market share. Lenders needed their borrowers to lie, but found themselves in the situation where they were duty bound to get proof, but couldn't because if the truth came out, they'd have to reject the application, and thus lose market share. So the lenders decided that they still had to get "some" proof to "tick their boxes" for the FSA. They did this by asking employers (for employees) and accountants (for self employed), not what amounts were truly being earned, but instead simply asking whether the person was employed or self employed - so basically they asked some questions, but deliberately didn't ask about earnings so they couldn't be told the truth. Ten years ago, I'd get a reference request from a bank for a self employed client wanting to know past and forecast earnings - in the last five years, all they've wanted to know is for me to confirm that the applicant is self employed, confirm how long they've been self employed and confirm how long I've been their accountant. There was never any questions about earnings nor loan affordability. Everyone in the mortgage industry, from brokers to the banks themselves, knew this was happening, but all conveniently ignored it for the sake of maintaining or increasing their market share.

MissMoneypenny

StevieJ wrote: »

I suspect that most people don't think this was a criminal offence (prima facie) but should be civil at most.

I suspect that those that have committed fraud like to tell themselves that it isn't a criminal offence.

StevieJ

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

I suspect that those that have committed fraud like to tell themselves that it isn't a criminal offence.

What about the bank employees that earned commission handing out these loans. Do you think they didn't know that some may be lying?

Jonbvn

silvercar wrote: »

Your joking, right?

murder, rape, paedos, armed robbery............................................mortgage fraud.

Hardly in the same league.

Although I fully agree with you, I get the feeling that some posters may not...

RecoveringAlcoholic

And The Fat Cats Just Get Fatter.

abaxas

silvercar wrote: »

Your joking, right?

murder, rape, paedos, armed robbery............................................mortgage fraud.

Hardly in the same league.

Not in the same league, but she did steal money. Lots of money.

I guess if it doesn't involve a shotgun or a penis, no-one is interested anymore.

The_White_Horse

what a crock.

the banks lend the money, they need to be sure that the person they lend to is not lying.

if you give out loans to shelf stackers, saying they earn 90k, and not wanting any proof, then tough luck. no one asked the bank to be so lax.

anyway, why did she tell them she earned 90k to get a house worth 120k????

at the end of the day, people should be allowed to borrow whatever they want, and if the fail to repay it, then debtors prison should beckon.

that will stop too many obtaining loans too large to repay.

PLUS, it should be law that you MUST take out fair repayment insurance, to pay out immediately upon redundancy or illness - nothing else.

The End

StevieJ

abaxas wrote: »

Not in the same league, but she did steal money. Lots of money.

I guess if it doesn't involve a shotgun or a penis, no-one is interested anymore.

She did not steal, she was a debtor and is still a debtor

silvercar

Pennywise wrote: »

Basically it is a conspiracy between borrowers and lenders. Borrowers should be honest, but many aren't because their income multiples on true figures didn't stack up. Lenders were desperate to lend to keep market share. Lenders needed their borrowers to lie, but found themselves in the situation where they were duty bound to get proof, but couldn't because if the truth came out, they'd have to reject the application, and thus lose market share. So the lenders decided that they still had to get "some" proof to "tick their boxes" for the FSA. They did this by asking employers (for employees) and accountants (for self employed), not what amounts were truly being earned, but instead simply asking whether the person was employed or self employed - so basically they asked some questions, but deliberately didn't ask about earnings so they couldn't be told the truth. Ten years ago, I'd get a reference request from a bank for a self employed client wanting to know past and forecast earnings - in the last five years, all they've wanted to know is for me to confirm that the applicant is self employed, confirm how long they've been self employed and confirm how long I've been their accountant. There was never any questions about earnings nor loan affordability. Everyone in the mortgage industry, from brokers to the banks themselves, knew this was happening, but all conveniently ignored it for the sake of maintaining or increasing their market share.

All true and i big step from the original idea of self cert.

This was to allow those people who had an income that wasn't a straightforward PAYE or evident in accounts/ bank balances to get mortgages that they could afford.

So those that had a large element of cash income, be it cash in hand or regular gambling or well hidden from the taxman could use this to get mortgages. That created some upset in that if it wasn't declared, it was felt (by our so honest governments and banks) that it shouldn't be used to get a mortgage.

Then the personal tax accountants realised that their efforts to minimise the tax bills of their clients left them unable to show an income for a mortgage so the banks agreed accountants could certify that their clients had the income. One step further and the banks would rely on people being satisfied that they could pay their own mortgage. Then greed stepped in on everyones part. People wanted to keep up with their friends, banks wanted to lend money and accountants didn't need to be liable for certiying the accounts.

All that came about when repo's didn't matter greatly. If someone had been too greedy with their mortgage, they were repossessed. BUt HPI meant that the mortgage was covered so they just started again.

Then the !!!!!! hit the fan.