Mis-sold Mortgage Northern Rock Together Mortgage

roonaldo

Hornsey wrote: »

If I am told that the property is valued at £299,999 and I borrow this amount only to be told a month later that it is only worth £275,000 a month later (2004/5 is pre bust) something is not right.

Why would I spend almost £25k more that I needed to? You have a very strange definition of dodgy.

Hornsey wrote: »

I did not pay £299,999 for the property but I was told that it was worth this figure

so how much did you pay for it? because you cant get this right.

catfish50

roonaldo wrote: »

so how much did you pay for it? because you cant get this right.

At a guess -- he did borrow the £225,000, giving his lender the valuation provided by the seller, but he paid less, due to a backdoor deal with the seller. Now he has a £225,000 mortgage on a flat worth less than £225,000.

dunstonh

I get the impression that this was a "flipper" who now feels very hard done by that it did not pay off

Anyone in that business knows that in general, new build properties lose around 15% overnight when they become second hand (usually more on apartments)

For that to work well you need to be in with the builder and get a discount (usually by buying multiple units or by taking on the furnishing yourself so the builder only does the shell. Buying at the market price and hoping for a gain in 3 months is laughable.

If he is a flipper then he only has himself to blame as that would make it a commercial transaction and if he didnt seek commercial and legal advice then you cant blame anyone for your mistake. Being a commercial decision he should have got an independent surveyor in. If he did, then he may have a case against that surveyor. If he used only the lender valuation then that is not good enough and if he didnt get an independent surveyor then you cannot blame for something he didnt employ someone to do.

Hornsey

dunstonh, Catfish and all the other self appointed guardians of the faltering status quo,

If this is the advice and `analysis' you are handing out it is not surprising that the nation is in a slump. Some of you actually get paid to hand out this advice. Were you getting paid to hand out this advice in 2005/6 before it all came crashing down?

Are there no lessons that you can learn? Or is it just a case of buyer beware? I would advise those named to start reading a basic economic text book, it might help you shed some light on the basic problem in the housing market.

Not once has any of you questioned any of the practices I have raised and you seem happy to blame me for any fundamental corruption/weakness in the housing market.

Banks miss sold PPI; fact. They are now having to pay it all back. Were there not sellers and buyers in this market? Maybe you think that PPI was sold correctly because there were buyers and sellers.

In fact I think that those of you most keen to absolve the housing market of responsibility sound increasingly like the banks pre this latest finding against them. Good luck with this line of reasoning.


Nothing will improve in the housing market (or the rest of this sluggish economy) until all of this toxicity is publically aired. Blaming the individual (when individuals have the least control in this whole business) at best means that few can lend because the true state of affairs is unclear. So we will bump along with close to negative growth, low spending, insolvencies etc.

At the other extreme the chances of the UK emerging with any credibility is close to zero. A nation in the old world needs credibility. Your comments (in particular those of ILW, dunstonh, Catfish and magpiecottage) are not credible.

:money:

catfish50

Ah, so you did rely on the seller's valuation. :-)

Hornsey

Catfish,

I did get advice / valuation independently. So you are wrong on that and a lot of other things.

I did actually post seeking advice. I thought, having heard the site's owner on the radio that I might get some quality advice.

Sadly you (and your mates) are no Martin Lewis.

I am sure you are a very nice person but I expected a far higher standard of interaction.

Have a good weekend. I am off now. :beer:

catfish50

Hornsey wrote: »

I did get advice / valuation independently. ... I did actually post seeking advice. I thought, having heard the site's owner on the radio that I might get some quality advice.

You need to be clearer about what the situation is, then you might indeed get some good advice from one or two other people posting in this thread. Wouldn't hurt to be more polite also.

Sadly you ... are no Martin Lewis.

Should hope not! :rotfl:

Have a good weekend. I am off now. :beer:

You too, Hornsey. Is that where your flat is? High crime area, could be affecting the property prices.

ILW

Hornsey wrote: »

Catfish,

I did get advice / valuation independently. So you are wrong on that and a lot of other things.

I did actually post seeking advice. I thought, having heard the site's owner on the radio that I might get some quality advice.

Sadly you (and your mates) are no Martin Lewis.

I am sure you are a very nice person but I expected a far higher standard of interaction.

Have a good weekend. I am off now. :beer:

I am at a bit of a loss, what were you hoping to hear?

magpiecottage

ILW wrote: »

I am at a bit of a loss, what were you hoping to hear?

He wants us to tell him that he has been missold his mortgage and that he can go to FOS and they will make the naughty bank give him all his money back.

He doesn't like it because we are not going to tell him what he doesn't want to know.

He will go off and tell that nice lady Natalie Ceeney the Chief Ombudsman that the nasty bank has given him too much money to buy a flat and the wicked people on moneysavingexpert.com have been horrid to him and he wants her to make it all right.

When she says "no" he will probably come back and accuse her of being a cow!

Mind you, the bank probably is at fault because they really should only lend to grown-ups!

antrobus

ILW wrote: »

I am at a bit of a loss, what were you hoping to hear?

What I think that the poster needed to be told was this.

If you buy a property for say £275,000 and fund the purchase of the property by means of a mortgage from Lender X for £250,000, and if it then subsequently comes to pass that the property in question (for whatever reason) is actually worth considerably less than £275,000, or indeed £250,000, then the lender has no legal liability for the fall in value. This has been the position since Bradford Third Equitable v Borders 1937, when it was held that a lender was not responsible for the condition of property to be mortgaged or indeed for any representations or descriptions of a property provided by the builder or vendor of said property.

In the circumstances outlined :-

Hornsey wrote: »

In 2004 I bought a nice 2 bed new build flat in North London. It was valued at £299,999.... I am hearing a lot of talk that builders/developers colluded with dodgy valuers to inflate the price at which it was sold to me.

then there might potentially be a claim against either the "builders/developers" or indeed the "dodgy valuers" who "colluded" to "inflate the price", but that is no basis for a claim against the lender.

Hornsey wrote: »

Is this misselling and how do I go about following this up?

Consult a solicitor with the necessary expertise and experience who will advise you of your legal remedies.