Santander mortgages have my pal over a barrel

54druids

A colleague of mine has been turned down for a mortgage by the woolwich. He is currently with Santander but wants to move his mortgage. Last year he reduced his mortgage for 1 month which was okayed by Santander and he paid it back as additional monthly payments over the following 6 months. The woolwich has turned him down for his mortgage as they say he has had bad credit for 1 month last year. Surely this is ridiculous after all it was only 1 month and he paid it back. So what should he do. He has already argued with the woolwich who will not budge. If he stays with Santander he will get his eyes taken out with their exhorbitant rates but they kind of have him over a barrel. What is more, his experian credit report shows no sign of this reduced month payment so is it a case of all mortgage lenders will approach the previous lender rather than use experian?

Thrugelmir

The obvious conclusion to draw from the situation from the Woolwich's point of view. Is that your colleague is struggling with his finances. To take a months mortgage holiday and repay over the following 6 doesn't appear good. So the Woolwich would much prefer to lend to a better risk borrower.

Suggest to him that he visits the Debt Free Wannabe board for some advice on tackling the situation.

Conrad

It may slip through the net with another lender, but it's a chance event.

In temrs of adhearing to lending rules as laid down by the Government regulator (the FSA) the Woolwich are spot on I'm afraid.

No dout in the [ast you have been nodding your head at a newspaper article where lenders have been critiscised for lax lending. Try and imagine this headline in 2 years time but pertaining to your mate > WOOLWICH LEANT LARGE MORTGAGE TO POOR CHAP WHO HAD ALREADY BEEN NUNABLE TO MEET HIS MORTGAGE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS JUST 6 MONTHS PRIOR. Imagine all those Mail readers tut tutting at that. No doubt your mate would then claim for a missold mortgage - you may laugh but this is exactly the sort of thing that goes on - people over the moon when leant too, but all to happy to play victim when a sniff of compensation is in the air. A lender cannot guess which people will end up in arrears again, merely they have to go on past history, period.

Next you have the demands of investors that lend money to Woolwich. Following the credit crunch, and the fact past investors had been inadvertently buying mortgage contracts where the house owner had had past troubles, investors now expect strict rules to be aplied. Any mention of arrears FOR ANY REASON (even death in family) are a big turn off for investors who would want a much higher return from your friend than the paultry low Woolwich mortgage rate. Woolwich also has to satisfy thier insurers who will not allow lending to those with recent arrears.

Now I am going to guess you will say what everyone else says in this situation; - 'but they are not arrears, Abbey allowed them'. Trust me they are arrears. The fact Abbey were sympathetic is neither here nor there.

Anyway should your mate not be thanking Abbey for allowing him the missed payment facility, why is he abandoning tghem just 6 months later.

Lastly you have to think from the point of a mortgage underwriter. She will be thinking, hang on a minute, I've had plenty of mishap and tradegy in my own life but allways paid the mortgage as I originaly agreed, that is to say ON TIME IN FULL, so I really cannot accept this blokes argument he had to not pay on time in full.

I'm surprised Abbey will do it to be frank - I'd advise your mate they may not have accounted for the missed payment - see these boards for stories of lenders withdrawing an offer right at the last minute, so if I were him I'd get it clarified by an underwriter (not a call centre bod) before going further.

koexelek

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The obvious conclusion to draw from the situation from the Woolwich's point of view. Is that your colleague is struggling with his finances. To take a months mortgage holiday and repay over the following 6 doesn't appear good. So the Woolwich would much prefer to lend to a better risk borrower.

Often, lenders are looking for reasons not to lend these days.

If they did not fancy doing the case, the above scenario would be a good excuse for them not to do it.

Conrad

koexelek wrote: »

Often, lenders are looking for reasons not to lend these days.

If they did not fancy doing the case, the above scenario would be a good excuse for them not to do it.

They don't have a choice as the are under strict rules placed on them by thier investors, the money markets and the regulator.

The harder it gets, the more a good broker is required.:rotfl:

54druids

Thanks for all your replies. I basically said the same thing. He has been advised by an FA not to go and question it with Santander as they will just try and tie him in but I said to him - that horse has already bolted - unfortunately it looks like Santander will be his only chance!