beware of sub prime lenders and mortgage brookers

Emmzi

Jeff,

I find it unbelieveable that you are blaming mortgage co and not your wife.

You may have a case for negligence againt the solicitor, for not checking ID.

But something here just doesn't add up. Your wife has committed fraud - what is she doing to put it right?? Are you trying to protect her by pushing blame elsewhere?

What advice does your solicitor have for you?

jeff12345659

I have blamed my wife for this and she has done her best to make ammends, but in her defence she was persuaded by the broker to do this. She originally just asked for a short term business loan.
My point of view is that I did not have any part in this mortgage. This is now admitted by SMPL and proven in court.
It has been a fault of somone else IE SPML, My wife, The Broker or the solicitor. Why the hell are SPML persuaing me to make up any lose the might make?

payless

Seems you and the mortgage firm are in some way both the victims ...

jeff12345659

Yes we are both victims, the difference is I stand to loose everything I have worked for, SPML could write this of as a bad debt, claim tax relief and may even be have insurance to cover this.
So who is the real victim here?

Emmzi

Why should SPML have to write it off and then pass higher rates on to everyone else???

You still haven't said what she is doing to FIX it - not just admit blame. Likeget a job and agree a payment plan?

Sorry to be harsh,but if she didn't know a husband impersonator was dodgy at the time..!! Ithink your defence of her is laudible, but misplaced. And if you choose to stay with her, then to some extent, you make a choice to take on her debt. But be aware it is a choice you are making, knowing what she has done and is capable of, and don't put the blame elsewhere.

What's your other option? Buy out her half of the equity on the house yourself, I guess.

Thefunkygibbons

Getting publicity whilst the wife is still with you is going to cause more heart ache methinks

silvercar

I'm not surprised CPS won't pursue it.

The fact that you are standing by your wife makes it difficult for a court to decide whether ahe went to the solictor with an impersonator with or without your consent. The defence could argue that you knew about it all along and did nothing precisely so that when it went belly up you could claim that you were duped.

homer_j_3

jeff12345659 wrote:

Yes we are both victims, the difference is I stand to loose everything I have worked for, SPML could write this of as a bad debt, claim tax relief and may even be have insurance to cover this.
So who is the real victim here?

Fully appreciate what you are saying and if you are persistent in trying to get SPML to make all the allowances here then you will not really gain sympathy from anyone, especially when your wife has put you in this position. This is the way I see it:

Your wife was in financial trouble with her business.

She went to see a mortgage broker to sort it out - mortgage brokers do not sort business loans out only loans secured against properties. If your wife had gone for a business loan, surely they would have only been able to offer a loan secured against equity? So you would have been in the position regardless of SPML?

If your wife had been upfront with you, you would have been able to be jointly involved in trying to resolve the finances out. She wasnt so she took a debt that was secured against your joint home.

You did not make payments as you were not aware, she did not make payments because she couldnt afford.

It has been suggested that the broker pushed her into doing this and falsifying documents to gain a mortgage. I can only assume that your wife was that scared of her business failing and being seen as a failure by family and friends, she was desperate enough to go along with anything to get herself out of her financial mess.

Clearly the broker should not have done this and I do not condone this one bit and can assure you that it is not normal practice but your wife is not blameless here, she is an adult and should know right from wrong and should have realised the possible consequences.

SPML have accepted the application based on certified copies of ID etc and assessed the mortgage on their lending criteria. They have been deceived here and your wifes compliance with this fraud has meant that the money loaned was secured against your home.

You are now shouting from the roof that sub-prime lenders are at fault here? Where? For providing a mortgage to a customer that they could see no problem with?

If your wife is still delusional about the whole situation and blaming everybody apart from herself then you maybe becoming confused by all the lies and mess that you have been through. Yes the broker has played a fraudulent place but he is not receiving much stick here is he?

Why not do the right thing and give SPML their money back. Afterall your wife was the one who took everything you have worked so hard for away, not SPML. Sell the house, repay the debt, set up a new home and start afresh?

I am sympathetic to your situation but I think that your judgement is seriously clouded and think you are taking your frustration out on the wrong people and life is just too short frankly.

AndrewSmith

A very reasoned and eloquent reply Homer_J.

I have to say that I fully support the above post by my friend above.

The lender has done absolutely nothing wrong. The broker is the one who assumes responsibility for the checking of ID and validity of the case, hence he is the one who supplies the lender with certified copies herewith. After all, a lender is only as good as the information it has been given.

The broker, your stand in on the application and your wife deserve to be horse-whipped publically, then sent to serve a long stretch of sewing mail bags for her Majesty.

I could never under any circumstances even look in the face of a woman or any other person who did this to me, let along even contemplate forgiveness.

jeff12345659

Yes, I see what you are saying but when the instuctions to the solicitor let identity to be proved without any photo ID then this is wrong.
I believe they have now ammended this loophole but alas, to late for me.
Also the brooker knew the identity of the mortgage applicants, one correct and one a imposter.
As a point in fact the ultimate responsibility rests with the solicitor to determine the identity of the applicants, under the guide lines laid out by the lender.