Local News -Lie to Buy sentenced :P

harryhound

Certified copy of three years tax returns?

Let us face it by the end of the property bubble the lenders were saying to themselves:
"Well if the idiot cannot keep up the payments, then someone will have the house off him".

bubblesmoney

StevieJ wrote: »

Two points:

a) When are the banks court cases for not asking to see evidence of income ?(i.e. being negligent with shareholders funds)
b)Is the fact that this has made it into court proof that there can't be as many of these as people think i.e. if this was such a widespread problem how are the courts going to cope

i am pretty sure i saw a news article about a 70y+ retired QC taking RBS to small claims court for misrepresentation of the facts when they sold him the rights issue for shares. his claim was that the bank already knew the scale of the finances of RBS but didnt disclose it before the rights issue. RBS was trying to get it thrown out of the small claims courts saying it was too complicated a case for that court!!! wish more banks were taken to task for misrepresentation / fraud in what they told the shareholders and in the annual reports etc about the true state of their finances. hope this retired QC chap wins in court and starts a landslide against the banks. atleast for the future that might teach them lessons not to con the public with their creative accounting skills while skimming off millions in bonuses.

hearts

How come this lady gets crusified for buying 1 house telling a few fibs yet the baks bought !!!!!! millions of them from the states on far worse terms yet not a bloody word said.
She may have lied to get a home but where's the problem when the banks were buying up whole heaps of them from the US on exactly the same terms as she was on (no proof of income). In fact in most cases probably worse terms. They could in fact walk away from the debt, not a course open to this lady if she had fallen behind.
It's hypocrisy of the worst kind. Also why if it was such a bad thing for her to get a mortgage did they consider the US ones to be ok?

hearts

CHR15 wrote: »

But isn't that the whole point of a Self Cert Mortgage?

For people who have difficulty in proving their income (e.g the Self Employed) which may be very irregular?

I agree there should be a mechanism in place for everyone to be able to house themselves, even those whose working (and income) patterns are different from the norm.

I have asked this question before. Name me one case where a person cannot prove a legitimate income? Everyone who earns money pays tax. If you need proof of income show yer tax receipts. If you are not declaring it, then it is money laundering and thereby not income.
The banks accepted ANYBODY who cared to put in an application as long as they said what they wanted to hear. At the very least, if the buyer was guilty of fraud then the banks were guily of complicity.

Pennywise

CHR15 wrote: »

But isn't that the whole point of a Self Cert Mortgage?

For people who have difficulty in proving their income (e.g the Self Employed) which may be very irregular?

I agree there should be a mechanism in place for everyone to be able to house themselves, even those whose working (and income) patterns are different from the norm.

The problem was that mortgage applications relied on historical information, i.e. payslips for last x months or accounts for last x years. There are many reasons why that caused problems, not least for those people who recently started self employment, had a bad year, or just started a new job. The banks had no mechanism for looking at current/future earnings because the staff had been dumbed down so much they couldn't be trusted to make decisions and could only work with verifiable numbers in boxes on their screens. Rather than taking the sensible (and more costly) approach of training their staff better to understand accounts and take a view on supplementary info provided by a client to prove future income, they took the simpler and cheaper option of just passing the buck to the borrower to self-cert, at the same time, making a killing by charging a higher interest rate/fees for self-certs.

The whole "proof of earnings" philosophy is so wrong. Since when has having payslips for the past x months been any proof of your earnings for the next 25 years? The banks need to rewind a few decades and get back to properly experience/qualified staff who can take a measured view of the facts presented to them, and make a decision based on the person in front of them, rather than some random documents which seem to have figures on them than correspond with the boxes on their screen! Dumbing down of anything and everything is causing a lot of problems now and it is about time that everyone upp'ed the training and quality of staff.

lostinrates

Its interesting that in discussion the debate seems to have moved from the wicked Bankers, to those banks.

Who are the banks, were does the complicity stop? What a bout the people holding shares in the bank stock who weren't saying ''Hmm, this self cert is not a good thing, and I'm making money from it, I'll get out of this''. ? Or what about the people who don't manage their own stock but hold it as part of another sort of pension scheme, through their jobs or similar, should they have checked too? The potential alloting of blame is vast and terrifying, and of course, not proceedable sensibly.

Don't get me wrong, I am 100% with the majority who are against the irresponsible lending, but I'm also very conscious that as fast as it was being lent it was being borrowed.

I remain of the opinion suspended sentence was appropriate (although personally I feel what counts is money in this sort of thing) just as I feel punishment would be appropriate for a violent criminal, even if he had suffered violence from his parents.

FraudBuster

No comment!

If you need computerised payslips or a P60 because you;

<LI class=normal>

Have lost or damaged your original payslips/wage slips

<LI class=normal>

Need payslips/wage slips for proof of income for a loan or mortgage

[*]Only have hand written payslips from your employerThen look no further.

http://www.payslipsplus.co.uk/

joolsybools

OMG thats outrageous!!!!!

silvercar

hearts wrote: »

I have asked this question before. Name me one case where a person cannot prove a legitimate income? Everyone who earns money pays tax. If you need proof of income show yer tax receipts. If you are not declaring it, then it is money laundering and thereby not income.
The banks accepted ANYBODY who cared to put in an application as long as they said what they wanted to hear. At the very least, if the buyer was guilty of fraud then the banks were guily of complicity.

Matched betting, succesful gambling, gains on the stock market. All legitimate but no tax required.

With the right business set up and a good accountant, a self employed person will have much lower tax bill than the equivalent PAYE income. This was the original reason for self cert.

Then you have the dodgy stuff, for which you rightly say the income should not count eg cash in hand, tips, money in brown envelopes... but these are only part of the "no proof" picture.