Reclaiming valuation fee?

herbiesjp

cordial wrote:

Fine, but that doesn't really answer the question, does it? WHY would a potential lender, weeks after seemingly asking what questions it wanted to ask and the valuation having been done at the potential borrower's expense, suddenly want confirmation from the current lender that the borrower is about to go up onto its SVR?

Doesn't seem to make any sense... unless it was deliberately seeking to obstruct the deal it had offered for some reason.

Also, on the second and non-relevant question raised - if, when someone applies for a self-cert mortgage (which is almost always at a higher interest rate level than a lender's other deals) they find they ARE being asked for proofs of income by that lender, can they then insist that the lender applies their lower, income-diclosed rate to the product???

Asking the lender in question should clarify the reason why they asked for it - remember they are lending THEIR money and are entitled to ask for whatever information they want. It is not being obstructive

If you can provide proof of income then you should not be going self cert in the first place.

Conrad

Why shouldnt a lender 'ask for info weeks later'? They employ underwriters to underwrite. Often final / late in the day checks reveal a loose end that needs tidying.

There are many reasons why a lender will want proof of the expected SVR payment from current lender, again this has a lot to do with complying with TCF (Treating Customers Fairly) in actual fact to protect the cleint. Brokers sometimes recommend a remo when in actual fact there is no need.

I assure you there is no conspiracy at work here.

AndrewSmith

cordial wrote:

Fine, but that doesn't really answer the question, does it? WHY would a potential lender, weeks after seemingly asking what questions it wanted to ask and the valuation having been done at the potential borrower's expense, suddenly want confirmation from the current lender that the borrower is about to go up onto its SVR?

The lender reservs the right to ask for any information it deems necessary. There must obviusly be something about the application that the lender is not 100% happy with thus requires further clarification.

Read the declaration that would have been signed to show agreement to the terms and conditions. It states that any information can be asked for and that the lender reserves the right to decline or refuse a mortgage without reason or explanation with no liability of costs incurred by the borrower (generally).

Doesn't seem to make any sense... unless it was deliberately seeking to obstruct the deal it had offered for some reason.

Irellivent if it makes sense to you or not. If they ask for information you can either provide it or go to another lender. Why on earth would a lender be deliberately trying to obstruct a deal? If they are not happy to lend they are brave enough to tell you.

Also, on the second and non-relevant question raised - if, when someone applies for a self-cert mortgage (which is almost always at a higher interest rate level than a lender's other deals) they find they ARE being asked for proofs of income by that lender, can they then insist that the lender applies their lower, income-diclosed rate to the product???

You can insist what you like but you are unlikely to get very far. The first thing the lender will want to know is why you applied for self cert if income is proveable. Secondly they will want to know why the borrower is creating such a fuss about providing income proof if the application shows genuine information.

Lenders ask for income proof on self certify applications for a number of reasons but the 3 most common are:

The applicant states employment status as Self employed but after checking against their NI number the lender discovers they are employed or sometimes even unemployed.

The declared income seems unrealistic for the type of business/employment it is declared against. Eg s/e window cleaner sole trader earning £300,000 a year (yes I have seen such applications) (Not saying anything against window cleaners either).

The lender has selected the application to go through their internal audit process.


Shout and demand too much from a lender (ie demanding a non self cert mortgage rate after a self cert application has been submitted just because they ask for further information) and I would expect your application to be swiftly rejected.

After all they have no obligation to lend anything to anyone if they dont want to. Credit is not a right.

cordial

AndrewSmith wrote:

Irellivent if it makes sense to you or not....

.... Credit is not a right.

...and nor, it seems, is any expectation of fair and reasonable treatment by potential lenders, which is the point the OP was clearly trying to make and which you have so studiously ignored.

Relying as it does on singing from the lenders' hymnsheet, your whole reply reeks of a contemptuous attitude towards borrowers and particularly those who may have the misfortune of having recently set up in business.

I had thought that people such as yourselves were supposed to act as 'intermediaries' and try to act literally as 'honest broker' between the parties. Particularly, in a case such as this, I would have thought that you would at least have recommended that the borrower concerned should approach the lender to ask for some consideration to be given her in view of the unfortunate sequence of events - but I see that you have not even bothered to suggest this.

Quite clearly, if you are typical of your species, then borrowers will have to be aware in future that brokers are only thinly-disguised, once-removed representatives of the lenders and that they are on their own when it comes to problems. At least, unlike yourself, this borrower's broker seems to have had the good grace to be appalled at the lender's antics.

AndrewSmith

cordial wrote:

...and nor, it seems, is any expectation of fair and reasonable treatment by potential lenders, which is the point the OP was clearly trying to make and which you have so studiously ignored.

What is not fair about the lender asking for further information to clarify the suitability of a potential borrower for the to lend money to?

Relying as it does on singing from the lenders' hymnsheet, your whole reply reeks of a contemptuous attitude towards borrowers and particularly those who may have the misfortune of having recently set up in business.

:rotfl: Utter !!!!!!, as anyone who has been on this forum for longer than 5 minutes will know that is a ridiculous statement to make. I have helped countless numbers of newly self employed people obtain mortgages correctly and to the best of their needs. I have also never had a complaint made or upheld against me in the 13 years i have been transacting UK mortgages. Bearing in mind that 70% of mu business comes from referrals from satisfied existing clients I think I can be confident in my abilities and the quality of my services. What I refuse to do however is patronise people by telling them 'you can claim back the fees' or 'it will be ok' when most likely it is quite the contrary or I am not in posession of all the facts needed to make such a judgement.

I had thought that people such as yourselves were supposed to act as 'intermediaries' and try to act literally as 'honest broker' between the parties. Particularly, in a case such as this, I would have thought that you would at least have recommended that the borrower concerned should approach the lender to ask for some consideration to be given her in view of the unfortunate sequence of events - but I see that you have not even bothered to suggest this.

My post was actually in direct reply to your outpouring and, as such, I have replied to the issues raised within. The OP knows that I woulld not reply in a derogatory fashion toward them.

Quite clearly, if you are typical of your species, then borrowers will have to be aware in future that brokers are only thinly-disguised, once-removed representatives of the lenders and that they are on their own when it comes to problems. At least, unlike yourself, this borrower's broker seems to have had the good grace to be appalled at the lender's antics.

Dear dear we do have a bee in our bonnet don't we?

I cannot give a personal opinion either way on the situation regarding the op as I am not in posession of all the facts of the case. People are too quick to cast judgement and form opinion however without knowing everything about the case specifics it is impossible to draw a conclusion as to who is right or wrong.

It is also evident that yoou have no understanding of brokers and what their job is, else you would realise just how laughable your polemic statements are, and how everyone reading it will see that you really do not have a clue.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

cordial

AndrewSmith wrote:

What is not fair about the lender asking for further information to clarify the suitability of a potential borrower for the to lend money to?



:rotfl: Utter !!!!!!, as anyone who has been on this forum for longer than 5 minutes will know that is a ridiculous statement to make. I have helped countless numbers of newly self employed people obtain mortgages correctly and to the best of their needs. I have also never had a complaint made or upheld against me in the 13 years i have been transacting UK mortgages. what I refuse to do however is patronise people by telling them 'you can claim back the fees' or 'it will be ok' when most likely it is quite the contrary.



My post was actually in direct reply to your outpouring and, as such, I have replied to the issues raised within. The OP knows that I woulld not reply in a derogatory fashion toward them.



Dear dear we do have a bee in our bonnet don't we?

I cannot give a personal opinion either way on the situation regarding the op as I am not in posession of all the facts of the case. People are too quick to cast judgement and form opinion however without knowing everything about the case specifics it is impossible to draw a conclusion as to who is right or wrong.

It is also evident that yoou have no understanding of brokers and what their job is, else you would realise just how laughable your polemic statements are, and how everyone reading it will see that you really do not have a clue.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Q.E.D.

To cover one's embarrassment at having been caught giving a totally one-sided analysis of the situation, one can always fall back on that oldie but goldie 'I am not in possession of all the facts of the case' or, when all else fails, 'I am a Broker and hereby invoke the holy right of a Broker to sneer at lesser mortals who aren't a member of my secret Brotherhood, blessed be its Name.'

No good, old chap.

Any fair-minded, unbiased third party who read the OP would have expected at least the odd word of sympathy and some vaguely helpful suggestions for the borrower. They will have read your response with more than the odd raised eyebrow, one suspects.

I hereby suggest to LizEstelle that her friend should, if not yet feeling depressed enough about the situation and the loss of several hundred pounds through no fault of her own, come on here in person and read through the thoughts of Chairman Andrew. That might at least set her right about what she can expect in future from financial 'advisers'.

Rick62

Well your name is a misnomer Cordial.

Andrew has given a full and honest explanation of how lenders work. People on this board want realistic advice and that is what he has tried to do.

In my opinion, again without know the full facts, the lender probably has no obligation to refund the valuation fee, however it might be worth the OP or the broker writing them a a letter of complaint and the Lender might pay back the fee, or part of it, just to resolve the matter and on an ex-gratia basis.

cordial

I am EXTREMELY cordial, I'll have you know!

Read his 'contribution' and you'll see what I mean. What you have said (apart from that) is very reasonable and he too could have mentioned this possibility - but elected instead to spout sanctimoniously from his turgid copy of 'Mein Lenders' Bible'. No borrower seeking help will thank him for simply repeating monotonously the lender's party line. They MIGHT thank him, as I do you, for backing up my thought that it might be worth a letter.

That's all, folks.

AndrewSmith

cordial wrote:

Q.E.D.

To cover one's embarrassment at having been caught giving a totally one-sided analysis of the situation, one can always fall back on that oldie but goldie 'I am not in possession of all the facts of the case' or, when all else fails, 'I am a Broker and hereby invoke the holy right of a Broker to sneer at lesser mortals who aren't a member of my secret Brotherhood, blessed be its Name.'

No good, old chap.

Any fair-minded, unbiased third party who read the OP would have expected at least the odd word of sympathy and some vaguely helpful suggestions for the borrower. They will have read your response with more than the odd raised eyebrow, one suspects.

I hereby suggest to LizEstelle that her friend should, if not yet feeling depressed enough about the situation and the loss of several hundred pounds through no fault of her own, come on here in person and read through the thoughts of Chairman Andrew. That might at least set her right about what she can expect in future from financial 'advisers'.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Not embarrased abut anything 'old chap' especially the fact that I can take comfort in the fact that the various articles i have been asked to write for this site have all been very well received and that in excess of 1,100 times people have found my posts useful. Yes there was a forum here before you came along believe it or not!

What she can expect from future financial advisers is blunt, honest to the point factual information. How would it look if an adviser told a client 'never mind, you may be able to get your money back' knowing that it is unlikely? That is far more damageing than being blunt, honest and to the point.

After all it is better to be honest and tell people the way it is rather than be diplomatic and try to create false hope.

As I said previously though, my posting was not aimed at the OP but was in direct reply to your own outpouring, which is why I quoted snippetts of the said epic in my reply.

Trying to make me out to be in the wrong here will not work. You will not succeed in twisting my reply to make it look like I was attacking the OP. Posters on this site know me well enough to know that would be miles from the actual truth.

You are being patronising to the OP by suggesting that they are coming here looking for sympathy. What posters come here for is factual information on situations as opposed to sympathy and false hopes.

cordial

To misquote slightly, the value of brokers' advice can go down as well as up. I don't doubt that you've given good advice in the past but this is not necessarily an 'indication of present performance'.

No good, old chap.

Rick62 made a reasonable suggestion as to seeking an ex-gratia payment while pointing out that the lender had no obligation. Fair enough. This scarcely gives 'false hopes' or meaningless 'sympathy' since the caveat is in place.

YOU seemed to go out of your way to be callously dismissive.

End of story.

End of interest.