given the run around by lender.

halfajack

Hi,

I've posted here before regarding a glitch with my mortgage application. It's just over two weeks past the entry date and the bank have said no unless my employer will guarantee continued employment after my contract ends in December. I would understand that. However, they were aware a month ago of my employment status and told my broker I should show evidence of a history of continuous enployment since starting teaching. I did that and it involved a very stressful month of asking my previous and current employers for confirmation of days worked over the last four years, plus a letter confirming gift status of part of the deposit. Why have they had me running around, on the phone and emailing people every day for the last month only to say no based on something they knew before all that? The only.new info the evidence gave them was that I worked every day full-time for the last four years so there's nothing there that would put them off? Has anyone heard of this happening before? I'll obviously be speaking to my solicitor tomorrow but would be reassuring to hear if anyone knows if I can take any action against the bank over what I think is maltreatment.

Thanks.

BoGoF

Why have they had you running around, presumably because you want to borrow money from them and you need to get the evidence.

Not sure where the 'maltreatment' comes from. From you previous posts you had an AIP which you were, apparently, aware is not a mortgage offer. As was said on your other posts your beef may be with your broker not the lender.

Caroline73_2

Why did you have to go and collect stuff from old employers? Couldn't you just show them payslips?

halfajack

Oh absolutely they need evidence. However, the 'maltreatment' claim is because they've now said no because of something they knew a month ago. Why didn't they say no then' why, instead, ask for evidence of my employment history when it has turned out to be completely irrelevant. My employment history couldn't be better but being shown evidence they asked for they've just said no anyway. Why did they ask for further info? This has nothing to do with the AIP, really. They've led me on for the last month when they already knew the thing that made them say no. I'm repeating myself a lot but, given your response, gather I didn't make it clear before. Yes, before it seemed my broker made a mistake but that's now in question and my gripe is now with the way the bank has handled this.

halfajack

Caroline, they had payslips and P60s which showed full time teacher salary since August 2009. My most recent school pays in a different way so they wanted confirmation from them I was working FT and being paid as such - which I got - and the evidence of work history, they said, would give them and idea of the likelihood of continued employment. They got evidence I was employed 100% possible days.

BoGoF

I'm confused with this post after you're last post here

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/46322037#Comment_46322037

Unless you have applied to another lender what has changed?

halfajack

BoGoF, sorry I understand the confusion. The last post I made there (avout the 12month requirement) was in relation to another bank I made a telephone enquiry with. That's when i'd lost hope with the original but was still giving.them what they asked and hoping. Does that clarify?

Thrugelmir

halfajack wrote: »

This has nothing to do with the AIP, really.

Correct. As until you make a formal application you case will not be reviewed by an underwriter. They and they alone will make a decision on behalf of the lender.

The underwriter has obviously asked for as much information as possible to come to a decision. The fact they've declined your application is not maltreatment. Its a commercial decision.

halfajack

Thrugelmir, thanks. Yes, full application was made on June 7th and was referred to an underwriter who cobfirmed my employment status then came back (and forward, etc) asking about history. My application has been with an underwriter about 4 or 5 times now since my employment status was confirmed yet that's the reason i've been given for a no. Why didn't they say no when that was first clarified?

By the way, it was BoGoF who brought up the AIP. I was merely clarifying this wasn't to do with my latest gripe.

halfajack

I handed in a letter to my solicitor today detailing the sequence of events and am awaiting his advice. Anyway, I originally asked if anyone had heard of anything like this happening before. Judging by your replies it's completely normal for underwriter to ask for different pieces of information stretching over a month, making the applicant miss the entry date by almost three weeks, despite already knowing the one thing which would make them say no. Is that right?