We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Did My Mortgage Company Rip Me Off?
Comments
-
theChimbles wrote: »Thanks for the advice. It's along the lines that I thought.
Unfortunately, she does not have any evidence of consent to let, other than the fact that the mortgage rate was switched from a relatively good rate to one which was very poor for no apparent reason. I think the facts speak for themselves.Briefly, she had a property with a mortgage and was paying the SVR of 3.5% interest on the loan. Her circumstances changed and she moved out of her property into rented accommodation, but maintained the mortgage on her property with the intention of letting it.
I can see a reason for why she was forced onto the higher rate. Perhaps they saw her as a greater risk to the bank as she has to payoff both the mortgage and rent for where she is living now. Greater risks tend to incur higher interest rates."One thing that is different, and has changed here, is the self-absorption, not just greed. Everybody is in a hurry now and there is a 'the rules don't apply to me' sort of thing." - Bill Bryson0 -
princeofpounds wrote: »I think that the switch in mortgage deal does help, although it's not ideal evidence.
She should also issue a data protection request to get hold of all information related to her account, including recordings of telephone calls if possible. I forget the exact terminology and procedure unfortunately.
Agree it's not ideal, but she'll just have to work with this.
Good idea on the DPA request. Something I hadn't considered, but definitely worthwhile. It will also serve to focus the bank's mind that she's serious.Matched Betting Year 1 - 02/04/10 to 01/04/11 = £6,381
Matched Betting Year 2 - 02/04/11 to 01/04/12 = £9,737
Matched Betting Year 3 - 02/04/12 to 01/04/13 = £9,373
Matched Betting Year 4 - 02/04/13 to 01/04/14 = £10,8390 -
mustrum_ridcully wrote: »[/FONT]
I can see a reason for why she was forced onto the higher rate. Perhaps they saw her as a greater risk to the bank as she has to payoff both the mortgage and rent for where she is living now. Greater risks tend to incur higher interest rates.
I agree that BTL is a greater risk and therefore should carry a risk premium, but the thrust of the argument is that the mortgage was mis-sold and the rate didn't have to be so punitive.Matched Betting Year 1 - 02/04/10 to 01/04/11 = £6,381
Matched Betting Year 2 - 02/04/11 to 01/04/12 = £9,737
Matched Betting Year 3 - 02/04/12 to 01/04/13 = £9,373
Matched Betting Year 4 - 02/04/13 to 01/04/14 = £10,8390 -
Was it an advised mortgage sale?0
-
Was it an advised mortgage sale?
Not sure exactly what one of these is, but assume it's where a broker or bank makes a formal recommendation. From what I understand it was an informal meeting where the bank said you need to change this and this is what you should change to.
The best of it, is that when she left, the bank assistant said something along the lines of "you shouldn't have bothered telling us, we'd have never have found out". Some kick in the teeth, that it!!Matched Betting Year 1 - 02/04/10 to 01/04/11 = £6,381
Matched Betting Year 2 - 02/04/11 to 01/04/12 = £9,737
Matched Betting Year 3 - 02/04/12 to 01/04/13 = £9,373
Matched Betting Year 4 - 02/04/13 to 01/04/14 = £10,8390 -
mustrum_ridcully wrote: »[/FONT]
I can see a reason for why she was forced onto the higher rate. Perhaps they saw her as a greater risk to the bank as she has to payoff both the mortgage and rent for where she is living now. Greater risks tend to incur higher interest rates.
The problem is not that she was moved onto a higher rate. It was that she was moved onto a higher rate to get consent to let (all fine) and then the bank 'forgot' she had consent to let and so subsequently put an extra premium onto the new mortgage deal.
i.e. she appears to have been charged twice.0 -
theChimbles wrote: »Not sure exactly what one of these is, but assume it's where a broker or bank makes a formal recommendation. From what I understand it was an informal meeting where the bank said you need to change this and this is what you should change to.
The best of it, is that when she left, the bank assistant said something along the lines of "you shouldn't have bothered telling us, we'd have never have found out". Some kick in the teeth, that it!!
Your Adviser should have issued you with a form which says whether it was an advised sale or not.
If it was an advised sale then you may be able to make a claim for bad advice.0 -
I would agree with this.theChimbles wrote: »Thanks for the advice. It's along the lines that I thought.
Unfortunately, she does not have any evidence of consent to let, other than the fact that the mortgage rate was switched from a relatively good rate to one which was very poor for no apparent reason. I think the facts speak for themselves.
People don't pay an arrangement fee of £995, accept a three-year redemption fee of £1,500 solely to increase their rate from 3.5% to 5.49%. The lender needs to be asked quite bluntly why they sold her this deal if it was not to get letting rights.
It strikes me that the real problem is probably thta individuals are getting incentives to change people to deals on higher rates and 2 of them have serially seen the opportunity to use the letting as an excuse to line their own pockets.
Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam0 -
DVardysShadow wrote: »
It strikes me that the real problem is probably thta individuals are getting incentives to change people to deals on higher rates and 2 of them have serially seen the opportunity to use the letting as an excuse to line their own pockets.
I think you've hit the nail on the head here!Matched Betting Year 1 - 02/04/10 to 01/04/11 = £6,381
Matched Betting Year 2 - 02/04/11 to 01/04/12 = £9,737
Matched Betting Year 3 - 02/04/12 to 01/04/13 = £9,373
Matched Betting Year 4 - 02/04/13 to 01/04/14 = £10,8390 -
theChimbles wrote: »Unfortunately, not specific paperwork other than the general mortgage papers, which make no mention of it being a BTL mortgage of about consent to let.
She didn't call to ask why BTL/consent to let wasn't mentioned between getting the papers and signing them?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.9K Spending & Discounts
- 244.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.2K Life & Family
- 258.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards