Mortgage refused on property which is already mortgaged with the same bank

marsman802

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

No, Abbey (and by the way, there is no such bank, so I am surprised you are calling them that - it's SANTANDER and has been for ages now) are not doing anything illegal.

All banks have lending policies and that determines what type of property they will lend on. These policies change from time to time - and generally, they have got tougher now than they were a few years ago.

Whilst you suggest they are "not losing anything" by allowing you to purchase the property at 80% LTV, that is only true if the existing borrower is already on 80% LTV or more. Even if that is the case, it is academic - lenders don't consider the existing mortgage on a property when considering whether you are eligible to borrow to buy it.

By the way, Abbey DOES still exist. Why people insist on trying to correct others without the facts is beyond me.


I've literally exchanged on a property last Wednesday and the entire process with the mortgage (I even had the offer amended and reissued 2 days before exchange) is with Abbey because we went through an Independant Financial Advisor.


Here's the link itself to the company - PART of the Santander Group.

http://www.abbeyforintermediaries.com/content/mortgages

balich

I have finally decided not to look at Flats and buy a house instead. Thanks to everyone for their input!

Kind regards

BT

MarkyMarkD

marsman802 wrote: »

By the way, Abbey DOES still exist. Why people insist on trying to correct others without the facts is beyond me.


I've literally exchanged on a property last Wednesday and the entire process with the mortgage (I even had the offer amended and reissued 2 days before exchange) is with Abbey because we went through an Independant Financial Advisor.


Here's the link itself to the company - PART of the Santander Group.

http://www.abbeyforintermediaries.com/content/mortgages

From the same website page:

Abbey for Intermediaries is a brand and is not a regulated company or a product provider.

:rolleyes:

balich

JoannaK wrote: »

yes the block is made of briks only, there are still some lenders borrowing money on those kind of properties, but it's not that easy. We didn't simulate in our advert that we want the cash buyers only as we didn't know the criteria had changed this much. I still think banks should be band from being allowed to refuse mortages on the properties which they have alredy borrowed money for once.
And the building was build in 1976.

HI Joanna,

I wish you best of luck selling the property. I do really hope you can find a buyer soon. It is a nightmare situation you are in.

All, I have moved on and trying to buy a house this time. I have had another problem this time with estate agent trying to force me to use their services. But afer helpful replies on another forum thread i sent them an email pointing out that they are breaking government regulation and they accepted my offer.:T

Richard_Webster

Quote:
The property is the only flat listed on the Registry"

The last sentence i believe means the property is the only flat in the block that was sold with a mortgage.
No. Nothing to do with mortgages. The reason the land registry has no record of the other flats is probobly that they have not been sold/bought since the LR was set up in the 1970s-80s. They are probobly still local authority owned.

I think the point here is that a lender might be more inclined to consider lending if a high proportion of the flats had been sold rather than remaining presumably in LA ownership.