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

Monkey_Joe

Yes all very confusuing.

Yes, if my sister was unfortunate enough to be picked for a random check 1 or 2 months after completion, Im not sure how Barclays will be able to demand their money back since it would have been already been paid to the HA. I guess they could take her to court ect but that is a lot of hassle and expense to go through when it would have been easier just to sort out the issue before completion.

silvercar

Really lenders are responsible for their staff. To say that the person someone spoke to as a representative of the company can't be expected not to lie because they are the lowest pond life is pathetic. The banks are responsible for the staff they pick and their training programme. If staff are routinely telling lies on behalf of the company the bank needs to address this. They can't expect customers to know to ignore staff members assurances because customers are meant to be aware that people will lie to achieve sales targets.

bingibongi

Your sister has signed a mortgage offer agreeing to its conditions - she appears to have decided prior to receiving those funds that she was not going to comply with one of those conditions/knew that she couldn't comply - that is bad no matter how you look at it.

As a teacher I would have thought that she would understand that if the mortgage says she must pay off the debt, that is what she must do. The refusal of the lender to remove surely indicates that they think it is an important condition.

Ditch_Crawler

dunstonh wrote: »

This suggests that the sales rep told the underwriters that the debts were going to be cleared within a period. Sometimes the mortgage application has a box to indicate debts that are being cleared with the application. So, the underwriters have possibly lent the money on a misconception.

I think this may be the missing part of the story.

There would be no advantage to the bank in imposing a condition which they would have known from the affordability check was not necessary in the first place, and, more importantly, had no chance of being complied with, so either it was a simple error which should have been easy to correct, or they actually had a good reason to impose the condition.

It surprises me that a pair of graduate teachers were unable to work this out for themselves - the rep will by now have included the completed mortgage in his sales figures and will benefit accordingly. The borrowers have no choice but to meet their commitments, whatever they may be, or face the consequences.

Ditch

opinions4u

Monkey_Joe wrote: »

If I was a lender and someone with 22k worth of debts and a combined salary of £60k came to me for a £50k shared ownership mortagage, I would ...

As a former mortgage underwriter, I would think it exceptionally unusual for a couple on decent salaries to be buying a shared ownership property with a relatively modest mortgage.

On the face of it, a mortgage of 0.83 x joint salary should sail through even with £22k of debt remaining outstanding. But before I approved this case I would be asking an awful lot of additional questions that aren't covered by the posts so far in this thread.

RecoveringAlcoholic

Yes there is nothing to worry about since my sister and her husband will never miss their payments.

I like the confidence.

Not sure what the OP wants to achieve.




.

Ditch_Crawler

opinions4u wrote: »

As a former mortgage underwriter, I would think it exceptionally unusual for a couple on decent salaries to be buying a shared ownership property with a relatively modest mortgage.

On the face of it, a mortgage of 0.83 x joint salary should sail through even with £22k of debt remaining outstanding. But before I approved this case I would be asking an awful lot of additional questions that aren't covered by the posts so far in this thread.

Ops4u, I think we read between the same lines....

D.

Afro_Thunder

Hi, I really wouldn't worry. I am a mandated underwriter for a building society and have used mortgage conditions similar to this and we only ever checked that they had been complied with if the customer subsequently applied for further borrowing or a subsequent house purchase. If she doesn't do this then she should be fine. There is no advantage to the lender in chasing them for evidence of repayment - there is not much they could do even if they found out about it.

Some of the comments left by people have been disappointing. Questions like why the OP sister is going into shared ownership and judgmental comments about her debts and qualifications are not relevant to the actual question being asked. These people should stop acting like !!!!!.

bingibongi

Prime example of the poor underwriting that goes on in many UK lenders - which we all pay for through the massive tax payer bailouts these institutions received.

Ditch_Crawler

Afro_Thunder wrote: »

Some of the comments left by people have been disappointing. Questions like why the OP sister is going into shared ownership and judgmental comments about her debts and qualifications are not relevant to the actual question being asked. These people should stop acting like !!!!!.

So what is your answer to the question - they were badly advised, or they were not badly advised? Or maybe what you mean is "it doesn't matter, just get away with it for as long as you can" - as Bilibongi says in reply to your post, that's the very attitude that got us where we are today.

Ditch