Mis-sold secured loan?

peachyprice

Lynsey, thinking logically, 125% mortgages have been readily available in the past, which in effect is what you have (well perhaps not 125% precisely, but you get my drift).

Sorry this guy got your hopes up.

[Deleted User]

LynseyR wrote: »

Hi, thanks for the reply. If it makes any difference, it was the mortgage I got out in 2006, and the loan in 2008. Would basing the loan agreement on incorrect details, even when we notified them of that, simply be regarded as 'bending the rules'?

have you considered that in 2008 (2 years ago)your house was worth more than it is now in 2010(like everyone elses)?
you are stuck in negative equity and are unlikely to be able to move anytime soon(even if you could sell),as for the loan being mis-sold,afraid not !

aj2703

LynseyR wrote: »

We told them before the loan all of the correct information, however, they still proceeded with the loan having the house recorded as over £100,000 in value when we clearly stated it was nowhere near that amount. So, before the loan was even agreed, the woman knew there was incorrect information submitted - contradictive of what we had told them.

None have my circumstances have changed, they changed them for me!

So why didn't you ask for a lesser loan...?. You knew the amount. You accepted the money.

dunstonh

Have spoken to someone at work about my secured loan and on the basis it was given to us. Because of the circumstances, apparently 75% of the loan could possibly be written off.

Sounds like he has been seduced by a claims company making outlandish claims to try and get money out of him. There are hardly any secured loans that have been written off and recent test cases have all found in favour of the lender.

Thus this next point raised by my colleague. The secured loan should never have been given to us with negative equity in the house.

There is no truth to that I'm afraid. 125% mortgages were common since the mid 90s. They are credited with helping to get the country out of the last property crash. Although they also helped fuel the next one.

At the time, we weren't going to argue, as we desperately needed the money.

So, it was your choice.

I thought at the time they would send someone out to value the house but they all they did was an online check.

Not uncommon.

I was intending on staying in the house for the full 5 year duration ie. not having to repay any council discount. One of the many pitfalls of my situation was an unplanned pregnancy. We live in a two bedroomed small house, hardly any storage space (which we planned on creating during the DIY process) with a 6 year old daughter and 18 month old
son. Things are a tad cramped!

So, it was affordable until you got pregnant. Is that the fault of the lender? That sounds harsh and I dont mean it to be but you have to look at this in plain language. You are effectively saying that you cannot afford it because you became pregnant and spent too much and the lender is at fault. When you put it down to that, does it really sound like a mis-sale?

Can someone confirm if this is true or not; is it really a mis-sold loan that can be disputed?

No mis-sale here and your colleague is feeding you a line I'm afraid.

woody01

All this claims stuff is never ending.
Anyone now, (OP being a prime example), just sees it as a quick fix to walk away from any of their financial responsibilities.

I am particularly pleased this is not going to work for the OP, as not only are they trying to 'shirk', but they are also doing it from an ex-local authority house which was discount in the first place.

pepe2008

The house was bought from the Council ( ie YOU and ME ) at a Discount, it was only right that there should be a sliding scale of repayment if the house was sold on......otherwise Council Tenants would be made very rich at the expense of those working hard to buy their own home and paying extortionate amounts Council Tax for the privilege!

The Loan Company ( who are there to MAKE money, not HELP anyone ) took an on-line valuation based on the postcode and assuming 'reasonable' condition.

The figures were not hidden from you and were not false.

Your sliding repayment was no concern of theirs. It was common for the only question to be asked was 'Can you afford the repayment?'.

Not mis-sold..........but beware COMPANIES PROMISING TO WIPE-OUT YOUR DEBT using Recent Legislation!

If you are having trouble repaying, then talk to CCCS/Nationaldebtline/CAB....not someone who advertises on TV.

ILW

dunstonh wrote: »

Sounds like he has been seduced by a claims company making outlandish claims to try and get money out of him. There are hardly any secured loans that have been written off and recent test cases have all found in favour of the lender.



There is no truth to that I'm afraid. 125% mortgages were common since the mid 90s. They are credited with helping to get the country out of the last property crash. Although they also helped fuel the next one.


So, it was your choice.



Not uncommon.



So, it was affordable until you got pregnant. Is that the fault of the lender? That sounds harsh and I dont mean it to be but you have to look at this in plain language. You are effectively saying that you cannot afford it because you became pregnant and spent too much and the lender is at fault. When you put it down to that, does it really sound like a mis-sale?



No mis-sale here and your colleague is feeding you a line I'm afraid.

Could be the fault of the lender, she hasn,t said who the father is.

pepe2008

ILW wrote: »

Could be the fault of the lender, she hasn,t said who the father is.

:rotfl::rotfl:Yeah, people always being ****ed by Lenders!

LynseyR_2

I didn't say I couldn't afford the repayments. I wasn't even looking to ways to get out of the loan - I posted here to ask if there was any truth in what I had been told.

Pregnancy was the happiest, but mistimed event of a whole long list of unfortunate events - had no money to spend from the loan, so I didn't "spend too much". So Dunstonh, I'm interested in why you assume I can no longer afford the payments because of this? I don't want to state what the money was for primarily, but I can tell you that I don't regret using it for what I did, and I would do it all over again if I had to.

I pointed out that we cannot move yet as there isn't enough money yet to cover the council, loan and mortgage. The easiest solution for me would be to stay the remaing 21 months, and make a good profit from the sale, pay off loan and have money to spend. Because of my circumstances, I NEED to move, not want, so I don't understand where all these assumptions are coming from.

Woody01, I'm pleased you're pleased. You sound like someone in need of some pleasure, grump!

jonesMUFCforever

Sorry but it looks like you have 2 choices - bankruptcy or stay put.