HSBC Mortgage - AVOID AT ALL COSTS !!!

didnof

ok guys this nit picking is getting ridiculous, you're desperate to stick up for the bank when clearly their decision was incorrect. jon, our new positions a internal promotion in the same company, even if i reverted back o my old positionwe we would be able to afford the motgage.

the fact is they said we culdnt afford £8000 deposit and £600 per month mortgage. instead they take a £12k deposit and £500 per month, if i saved my £100 per month it woul take 40 months to save up what i had to pay extra in deposit. IT DOESNT STACK UP!!!

TrickyDicky

didnof wrote: »

ok guys this nit picking is getting ridiculous, you're desperate to stick up for the bank when clearly their decision was incorrect. jon, our new positions a internal promotion in the same company, even if i reverted back o my old positionwe we would be able to afford the motgage.

the fact is they said we culdnt afford £8000 deposit and £600 per month mortgage. instead they take a £12k deposit and £500 per month, if i saved my £100 per month it woul take 40 months to save up what i had to pay extra in deposit. IT DOESNT STACK UP!!!

No, their decision was quite correct FOR THEM - not you. We applied to HSBC on the internet/phone and had it all approved before final signatures within a a couple of weeks.

Getting a mortgage is NOT A RIGHT. The bank have their own rights in chosing who they accept for any financial products.

It all seems to stack up to me.

Jonbvn

didnof wrote: »

ok guys this nit picking is getting ridiculous, you're desperate to stick up for the bank when clearly their decision was incorrect. jon, our new positions a internal promotion in the same company, even if i reverted back o my old positionwe we would be able to afford the motgage.

Point noted. However, the real problem I can (& HSBC) see is that even with excellent salaries you have not saved much money. This alone would raise questions, without the fact that you are buying a house way below your pay-grade.

I am not an underwriter or anything whatsoever to do with the finance industry. HSBC are notorious for having strict lending criteria, which is one of the reasons that they are not presently being supported by the tax-payer.

We have a mortgage from HSBC, and our income outweighs our mortgage (original mortgage <<1.2 x income). However, to get accepted by HSBC, they requested us to increase our deposit to ensure LTV < 75%.

Finally, overall the longer term is not a big issue, since you can make 20% penalty-free overpayments during the fixed rate, and unlimited thereafter.

Edited for too many "BTW's"

_Andy_

didnof wrote: »

ok guys this nit picking is getting ridiculous, you're desperate to stick up for the bank when clearly their decision was incorrect. jon, our new positions a internal promotion in the same company, even if i reverted back o my old positionwe we would be able to afford the motgage.

the fact is they said we culdnt afford £8000 deposit and £600 per month mortgage. instead they take a £12k deposit and £500 per month, if i saved my £100 per month it woul take 40 months to save up what i had to pay extra in deposit. IT DOESNT STACK UP!!!

It's not about nit-picking or sticking up for the bank.
HSBCs concern is the monthly payment not how much savings you have.
If you really feel they have made a lending decision regarding the term purely on the basis of what makes the most profit (which as stated numerous times isn't the case) then go through the complaints process and then on to the Ombudsman (which will just waste everyone's time including yours).
You need to accept it's not about what YOU think is affordable, it's up to the lender.
Regarding your comment about working for HSBC, I don't work in the financial services industry - again, whether I feel you can afford the mortgage (which I do) or not, isn't relevant whatsoever - it's what HSBCs affordability model does - are you suggesting this model is based around making a small amount of profit more per customer rather than statistical analysis of lending risks?

There's no conspiracy here and nothing to be paranoid about but you clearly won't change your mind so I'll step out of the discussion here.

Hugbubble

didnof wrote: »

ok guys this nit picking is getting ridiculous, you're desperate to stick up for the bank when clearly their decision was incorrect. jon, our new positions a internal promotion in the same company, even if i reverted back o my old positionwe we would be able to afford the motgage.

Surely you'd be able to save more rather than less when getting a new higher paid job in the same company? Don't understand why this would affect your ability to add to your savings...

Dan_1976

Didnof, you have answered your own questions.

You just have the hump because you did not get your own way.

I have done mortgages in the past for big earners, a few of which worked for a finance house that went under and shocked the world (LBros). Now they may or may not be struggling, but the lender took a risk as they were high earners, not been in the job long and had 10% deposits.

Now the mortgage would not go through. Lenders have a right to pick and choose the amounts and conditions they offer. If the banks and lenders had the attitiude of HSBC for the last 5-10 years we would not be in this mess.

Dan

Conrad

didnof wrote: »

andy, the point is that i can confortably afford £600 per month on my own, never mind with my wife helping. my wife can also afford £600 on her own. HSBC were well aware of this and when i questioned our contact she hinted that they pick and choose their customers. the issue is not that we couldnt afford £600 between us but that they got an extra 5% deposit and more interest in the long term.

you may know you can afford it, but clearly your opinion is irrelevant when it comes to Bank policy. They take account of the general FSA guidlines on affordability.
The 19 year term is what would be typically affordable by the average person.

Of course Banks can't tweak this on an ad-hoc basis client by client as that would lead to them having to meet demands for compensation by thosr that get into trouble later.

Simply overpay the capital once the erc no longer applies, and stop whinging for gawds sake

Conrad

didnof wrote: »

clearly their decision was incorrect.

The issue is you have a very self centric view of the world. Sorry if that comes accross as offensive, I am merely stating a fact based upon my reading here. No offence intended.

Rules can only be designed by reference to typical average behaviour, not on an ad hoc basis with the latitude to encompass every shape and size of applicant - that would make dealing with arrears cases impossible as the judge at the repo hearing would claim HSBC's affordability rules were ad- hoc and too lax. Can you imagine then the legal wranglings and contortions trying to resolve why one applicabnts affordability was said to be x and another y? Legal eagles would have a field day.

Get it?

mrs_skint

You again -

mrs_skint

you are ONE patronising git. That's it - I'm off to another consumer forum for advice.