beware of sub prime lenders and mortgage brookers

HelpWhereIcan

Arch-Angel wrote:

A decent sum-up. You (Jeff) say that you've proven (via a handwriting expert) that your signature does not match the relevant mortage documents. SPML are right to chase you - they think you owe them money after all - however, once you've proven that you didn't take out the mortgage, I wouldn't have thought you were liable for any debt or expense incurred as a result of this application.

The terms of the mortgage charge will have been quite standard and would have made all 'borrowers' jointly and severally liable. In other words, you (as joint owner of the property) are as liable for the debt as you wife. They may repossess the property even if non of the mortgage was for your benefit as the charge was on the property, not a person or couple. They may well not hold you 'responsible' for the debt, but they will still repossess the asset and would have followed a repossession procedure against you to ensure that your rights were not contravened and that the repossession was 'legal'.

The fact that it has been allowed to remain with your trustee, (rather than being repossessed, sold and then any balance being passed on to your bankruptcy trustee to settle the bankruptcy) may show that some consideration of the circumstances has been shown - especially if you have no wife and kids there with you (is this the case?)

Arch-Angel

HelpWhereIcan wrote:

The terms of the mortgage charge will have been quite standard and would have made all borrowers jointly and severally liable. In other words, you (as joint owner of the property) are as liable for the debt as you wife. They may repossess the property even if non of the mortgage was for your benefit as the charge was on the property, not a person or couple. They may well nod you 'responsible' for the debt, but they will still repossess the asset and would have followed a repossession procedure against you to ensure that your rights were not contravened and that the repossession was 'legal'.

The fact that it has been allowed to remain with your trustee, (rather than being repossessed, sold and then any balance being passed on to your bankruptcy trustee to settle the bankruptcy) shows that some consideration of the circumstances has been shown - especially if you have no wife and kids there with you (is this the case?)

Ta for that - about to be a FTB after all!!

However, whilst the terms state that both parties are liable, if person x did not take the mortgage - and can prove that! - how can he still be liable? The mortgage company has to act - it's their money after all - but it sounds like the mortgage company have been taken for a ride as well.

Trouble is - and i'm brainstorming here - the principle means for the mortgage company to get their money back is to repossess. Are there other methods open to the mortgage company to get their money back in this case (e.g. pursue the broker etc. directly through the courts)?

silvercar

Is your wife still living in the house? Is she still your wife? If so, I guess it makes it harder to go to the police.

jeff12345659

Yes, good point. The company concerned was mortgage monitor of Highview House, Charles Square, Bracknell, Berskshire.

jeff12345659

Yes she is and our relationship has been very difficult, as you can imagine.
I did report this matter to the police but the CPS decided not to persue the matter.
SPML heve made no attempt to persue the broker, to the best of my knowledge.

jeff12345659

Thanks and you have made some very valid points. I appreciate the feedback from you and all the other people on this site.

jeff12345659

Mortgage Monitor did very nicely from this as the got the commision from the I group and SPML. The ironic thing is that nobody seems willing to persue them. The financial ombudman was very sympathtic but now they are in liquidation cannot persue them.
I have recently sent my complaint to the DTI, I shall have to wait to see if they do anything.
I worry that goverment departments just want an easy life, this matter is far from simple and could cause them to do some work!

payless

so taht would be Mortgage Monitor (UK) Ltd

FSA ref 414403

as opposed to the similiar named firm ( without the UK bit ) who seem to be totally separate

anyhow make sure the regulators are informed- out of business or not , who will want to look at the people involved in the business ( and also in this case the host firm, as appears they were not actually directly authorised)

---

There are only so many "names" to go around in this business, and that sometimes confusion - I've had people call me, complaining about the service of a similiar named firm ( again also out of business now!! )

jeff12345659

The debt counsellor origianlly said that he spoke to my wife and myself, at length regarding arrears. This he wrote in a statement. This was just complete fabrication as he spoke to my wife on her own. When I challeged this and had a statement from a witness to prove this he failed to sign his statement saying "I had become confussed".
This lie was believed by many poeple and did me much damage. It was obvious that he lied but mud sticks, so they say.

jeff12345659

Yes thats them. I am pushing the DTI to take action. Thanks