Has my sister been badly advised by Barclays and her solicitor?

Afro_Thunder

dopester wrote: »

They signed the contract in full knowledge this debt-repayment was a condition. If the don't and they do run into financial difficulties, then the lenders can show they haven't met the original conditions.



You say they've only just recently completed and yet already they/you are positioning for a claim as victims of irresponsible lending in the future. The ink on the contracts barely dry. What a hoot!

Your sister recording the Barclays rep rofl in the hope that if they do have problems they can wriggle out of it. Doesn't seem to me they're fully convinced themselves of their ability to service their 'sustainable' debts.



Yes I do think they've been stupid. You said it was fair enough if we think so. I think so and posted so. Especially when reading threads where people rush in then later try to claim they've oh-so-vulnerable and have been misled or missold something, to wriggle out of their obligations.

If they were uncomfortable with the debt repayment clause, she shouldn't have signed the contract. The real c*nts (as you put it) are the ones who are always trying to wriggle out of personal responsibility for their actions. Not those who are astonished at the crisis-prone situations people voluntarily put themselves in.



Exactly that. Sustainable so long as current employment and pay conditions continue uninterrupted into the future. There is a lot of evidence of severe cut backs coming, including for schools and teachers. Strike action is planned, as per the BBC News article. So I don't think it's unreasonable for me to raise that against someone who keeps saying significant debt is so sustainable, as though it is very unlikely there are any major changes to teachers' jobs and pay in the pipeline.

I have to disagree. Having read the post of yours that prompted the OP to call you a c*nt I have to agree with the OP.

The OP is fully entitled to believe that his sister will be ok in the future. Who are you to say otherwise? Yes, she may be one of those teachers to suffer due to cut back but there is an equal chance that she might be one of those to survive cut backs. You know sod all about her, her actual job, and yet you resorted to the typical BS judgmental reply you get in these forums from !!!!! whose only purpose is to be !!!!!.

Yes you have attempted to answer the OP question now it’s just a shame you could not do that the first time you posted on this thread.

Dark_Jester

inca wrote: »

I was going to type a genuine response to your OP as I felt there have been some harsh and unnecessary response to your original question, however as soon as I saw this:

"Dont be a c*nt!"

I changed my mind...

You changed your mind because you have nothing of value to say

Dark_Jester

dopester wrote: »

They signed the contract in full knowledge this debt-repayment was a condition. If the don't and they do run into financial difficulties, then the lenders can show they haven't met the original conditions.



You say they've only just recently completed and yet already they/you are positioning for a claim as victims of irresponsible lending in the future. The ink on the contracts barely dry. What a hoot!

Your sister recording the Barclays rep rofl in the hope that if they do have problems they can wriggle out of it. Doesn't seem to me they're fully convinced themselves of their ability to service their 'sustainable' debts.



Yes I do think they've been stupid. You said it was fair enough if we think so. I think so and posted so. Especially when reading threads where people rush in then later try to claim they've oh-so-vulnerable and have been misled or missold something, to wriggle out of their obligations.

If they were uncomfortable with the debt repayment clause, she shouldn't have signed the contract. The real c*nts (as you put it) are the ones who are always trying to wriggle out of personal responsibility for their actions. Not those who are astonished at the crisis-prone situations people voluntarily put themselves in.



Exactly that. Sustainable so long as current employment and pay conditions continue uninterrupted into the future. There is a lot of evidence of severe cut backs coming, including for schools and teachers. Strike action is planned, as per the BBC News article. So I don't think it's unreasonable for me to raise that against someone who keeps saying significant debt is so sustainable, as though it is very unlikely there are any major changes to teachers' jobs and pay in the pipeline.

Sorry but i have to agree with the original poster. What you wrote was pointless, nothing to do with the original question and only posted because you felt like being a c*nt to the OP for what ever twsited reason you had. As Afro said, you know nothing about her and so if you was incapable of answering the OP actual questions then you should have taken your brand of negative BS some where else.

MrPoor

This thread makes me laugh! :rotfl:

Some people on this mortgage forum can be real c*nts. The "Utilities" forum is so much nicer.

silvercar

Where is this going? What was the point of the thread?

Your sister has the mortgage, nothing is changing that. If she gets into difficulty the lender could complain that she didn't comply with the original conditions. All that does is mean that the lender may take repo action quicker and a court may be less forgiving at a repo hearing.

As she fully intends to keep up with the mortgage, that shouldn't be an issue.

Was she wrongly advised? Possibly. I guess her bottom line to the solicitor/ lender/ mortgage advisor was "I want to buy the house, give me the mortgage." So she lived with whatever was told in order to get the mortgage and buy the house.

She should just be grateful she got her mortgage and move on. No comeback to her - no-one gets repossessed for keeping up with payments. She can't get redress from the solicitor or even the lender, as redress means putting you back in the situation she would have been in. Which means losing the mortgage and the home - not what she would want.

Pointless thread IMHO.

Ditch_Crawler

MrPoor wrote: »

This thread makes me laugh! :rotfl:
The "Utilities" forum is so much nicer.

I haven't been there yet, is it OK if i pop in?

Ditch

inca_2

Dark_Jester wrote: »

You changed your mind because you have nothing of value to say

Ah thanks Jester, good job I have you as my mind isn't it? I'm sure you won't find any constructive or helpful posts I've made to any others to validate your comment hey? I'm afraid I missed your valued pearls of wisdom on this topic. Not much more that can really be said here so off to another topic it is

dopester

Maybe it's true and I am, or at least very cynical. I like being that way. The repeated claim of 2 teachers borrowing on a joint-salary of £60K, for Shared Ownership, with the debt being so 'sustainable' saw me blurt out a post in frustration. The OP said it's ok if people think they've been foolish. I don't regret my post if it's wound up people who respond using that word.

So people "can't predict the future" (Afro) and "all people can do is be sensible and enjoy today" (Monkey_Joe). OK, sure.

I see MJ has got one reasonable reply on a different forum (seen his post on a couple of other places). It would seem there is little to worry about provided you keep up with your repayments, but the condition may have issues in the future if everything doesn't prove oh-so-sustainable.

http://www.moneysupermarket.com/community/forums/t/mortgage-query-quotyou-must-repay-the-following-c-42245.aspx

Although there is also this, on another recent thread at MoneySavingExpert may be of relevance.

stinky985 wrote: »

OK, i'm answering my own post but it may help some others in the future.
According to my solicitors all conditions are binding and they will not complete if they think that any condition would not be met. So, Supplementary Mortgage Conditions DO MATTER.

In my case the Mortgage Broker is requesting an amended offer from Woolwich to be sent out. According to the Broker this should not be an issue in my case, as it is definitely affordable. I wait to see if that is the case, but for info this may help someone.

FraudBuster

(1) Don't trust in-house bank advisers as they are paid on a commission basis OR have earnings/rank determined by how many products they sell. They will lie or bend the details as needed.

FSA fines and bans former Northern Rock deputy chief executive and credit director for misreporting mortgage arrears figures.

FSA/PN/066/2010
13 April 2010
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has today fined David Baker, former deputy chief executive of Northern Rock Plc (NR), £504,000 and Richard Barclay, former managing credit director at NR, £140,000.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2010/066.shtml