Help!!! Suspect fraud in valuation

BT_man

and because they are from a particular site with view's that oppose your own they must be troll's....?

(ignore the sig this occasion)

HugoSP

In case Helen comes back to read this thread I think its worth restating what Both Alan and I have touched on.

If the property was genuinely over valued in 2004 then she or her mortgage company may have and pursue a case against the surveyor. His PII should defend/negotiate this.

The only problem here is whether her mortgage company may hide behind their MIG (Mortgage Indemnity Guarantee) scheme. Alan will no doubt know that this is a scheme used by mortgage companies and charged to the borrower to indemnify the mortgage co against losses resulting from negative equity. The sting in the tail is that this scheme does NOT indemnify the borrower - often leading to costs being recovered from the borrower by the insurance company in the event of a claim by the mortgage company.

I strongly suspect that Helen would have been required to take one of these out with such a small deposit - that is why I would not be over optimistic about the mortgage company going to all that trouble to pursue the surveyors when all they need to do is to claim on the policy.

BettiePage

Will Helen have anything to hide when the mortgage company scrutinises her paperwork though.....?

brasso

BT_man wrote:

and because they are from a particular site with view's that oppose your own they must be troll's....?

(ignore the sig this occasion)

In this case, yes. As a general observation, the HPC lot tend to be extremely antagonistic and sneering towards people who've got themselves into financial trouble.

HugoSP

brasso wrote:

In this case, yes. As a general observation, the HPC lot tend to be extremely antagonistic and sneering towards people who've got themselves into financial trouble.

Who are HPC?

Doozergirl

HPC is housepricecrash.co.uk, or it's younger counterpart globalhousepricecrash.co.uk

Some members have a habit of posting links to MSE threads to illustrate 'muppetry', I think they call it.

Madjock

that web addy is a bit of an oxymoron, imho.

BettiePage

Madjock wrote:

that web addy is a bit of an oxymoron, imho.

The second one is dot com.

Rachman_2

Alan_M wrote:

Bring them on, troll bating can be quite interesting sometimes:)

Alan, he partly means me - I've been called a troll over there for disagreeing with them there too - however, I don't live under a bridge and just come out to turn the knife...

You mentioned the young woman trying to decide whether to buy or not on £16K - I don't think I was just causing trouble on that one (or here either) - but if I posted something on one thread someone decides is just not their view, I must be a troll.....

Rachman_2

HugoSP wrote:

The only problem here is whether her mortgage company may hide behind their MIG (Mortgage Indemnity Guarantee) scheme. Alan will no doubt know that this is a scheme used by mortgage companies and charged to the borrower to indemnify the mortgage co against losses resulting from negative equity. The sting in the tail is that this scheme does NOT indemnify the borrower - often leading to costs being recovered from the borrower by the insurance company in the event of a claim by the mortgage company.

Hugo, I know several of the lender from the darker end of the scale (e.g. GMAC) did not higher lending fees, MIGs, MIPs as they could not afford to have them and still get a slice of the pie in 2004 - however, assuming there is one, that is probably good news for the original poster - it'll wipe out the capital shortfall, but it won't cover the arrears and the fees (as you say) - which means her deposit's down the Swannee (though I suspect it may turn out a large part of that was borrowed too, being cynical).

She owed £237,500 - she will still owe £237,500 in capital - so if it sells at a net £215K, taking off agents' fees she'll be getting say £212.5K for round numbers) leaving a £25K shortfall - the insurance will eat that, but she will still be out about £12.5K to £15K - and that's if they let her sell without redeeming in full - I can see a recalcitrant mortgagee that's got a chargor who has messed them about so much not showing much goodwill or flexibility to the OP.

[I still think Bob Hope's got more chance of a successful fraud claim though]