Should we apply again?

rizel23

Me & my partner are getting sick of renting.

Facts;

Age 29/30

Joint income of 34K

13K Deposit (plus 2-3K to cover fees) after LTV 90% for 117K mortgage.

We manage are money very well, are current debt is; £1500 between us with all payments on time.

My credit record over the last 2.5 years is excellent, no missed payments and balances cleared every few months. Our joint account shows all household utility/bills/rent paid on time and account in credit constantly for 12 months. Did a credit check on experian and got a score of 871 which is just below "Good" have closed some unused credit cards lowering my available credit by £4K as i do not use those accounts/cards.

However

2/3 years ago I got 3 low value defaults, £700, £900 & £400 on disputed Credit Card accounts.

We applied for a mortgage from my bank (HSBC) and got rejected last week.

I have heard good things on the Ipswich Building Society is it worth applying to them or any other provider as they seem to look at more than a credit score?

Many thanks

TinyToes

i think you may struggle with 3 defaults, you may need to wait until these drop off in 3 years. however im sure someone with more knowledge will be able to give better advice. also you dont want to make too many applications in a short place of time.

handytips

You will need to have a 25% deposit and the defaults will all have to be older than 2 years old, i see this all the time with defaults, why people let it get to this over a few hundred quid is uncomprehensable, and the OP said it all when they declared they were in dispute, What 3 of them. Its never your fault but ultimately and deep down you know it is. I wish you good luck with your applications but i see disappointment awaiting you, plus HSBC are the pits at the moment and they have no appetite for lending.

The_J

"In dispute" usually means "I didn't want to pay it that month but the bank wouldn't accept that".

No idea what is wrong with renting? It will be cheaper than a 90% mortgage I'm sure. Save up more of a deposit, 10% is so 2006.

rizel23

handytips wrote: »

You will need to have a 25% deposit and the defaults will all have to be older than 2 years old, i see this all the time with defaults, why people let it get to this over a few hundred quid is uncomprehensable, and the OP said it all when they declared they were in dispute, What 3 of them. Its never your fault but ultimately and deep down you know it is. I wish you good luck with your applications but i see disappointment awaiting you, plus HSBC are the pits at the moment and they have no appetite for lending.

Thanks for your reply, yes all 3 are still in dispute over valid or lack of CCA. The Defaults, again are also defective on remedy dates and or other details, so legally unenforceable, this was not simple just a case of not wanting to pay, information was requested and it was not provided.

If you would like a read heres full details of one of them, hopefully this will enlighten you to what some people have to deal with with so called 'trusted lenders':

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?30399-Lowells-Barclaycard

Well we might as well just apply, worst they can say is no

DVardysShadow

rizel23 wrote: »

Thanks for your reply, yes all 3 are still in dispute over valid or lack of CCA. The Defaults, again are also defective on remedy dates and or other details, so legally unenforceable, this was not simple just a case of not wanting to pay, information was requested and it was not provided.

If you would like a read heres full details of one of them;

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?30399-Lowells-Barclaycard

Well we might as well just apply, worst they can say is no

The sympathy tap is firmly shut.

As far as I am concerned, a genuine dispute is one where amounts are being charged to you which are not your responsibility to pay. When the dispute is over CCA, the rules are different. All a lack of CCA implies is that the debts are not enforceable in court. But in terms of the procedure for defaulting, there is no reason I can see not to default you. You don't seem to be denying having taken the credit. CCA's are a fairly desparate measure for people who have very little other option to escape their debt. And as you are learning, it does not come without a cost - unless you are not planning on taking out future credit.

I hope that you got away with your £2000 and that this is adequate compensation for not being able to get a mortgage for the next few years and having to rent instead [renting is dead money, they say] or for having to pay a higher rate of interest on a sub prime deal.

The_J

rizel23 wrote: »

Thanks for your reply, yes all 3 are still in dispute over valid or lack of CCA. The Defaults, again are also defective on remedy dates and or other details, so legally unenforceable, this was not simple just a case of not wanting to pay, information was requested and it was not provided.

If you would like a read heres full details of one of them, hopefully this will enlighten you to what some people have to deal with with so called 'trusted lenders':

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?30399-Lowells-Barclaycard

Well we might as well just apply, worst they can say is no

Actually, it's the so called "trusted borrowers" who are the problem here. Your arrogance towards the banks is absolutely breathtaking.

You've basically stolen £2000 and tried to exploit a legal loophole to get off paying it. Think about it, if you gave £2000 to your neighbour and they turned round and said, I'm not giving that back to you because of "xyz" but 2 years later they came back to you and said "Can I have £120,000?" what would you say?

If it was up to me I'd never give you credit again.

rizel23

DVardysShadow wrote: »

The sympathy tap is firmly shut.

As far as I am concerned, a genuine dispute is one where amounts are being charged to you which are not your responsibility to pay. When the dispute is over CCA, the rules are different. All a lack of CCA implies is that the debts are not enforceable in court. But in terms of the procedure for defaulting, there is no reason I can see not to default you. You don't seem to be denying having taken the credit. CCA's are a fairly desparate measure for people who have very little other option to escape their debt. And as you are learning, it does not come without a cost - unless you are not planning on taking out future credit.

I hope that you got away with your £2000 and that this is adequate compensation for not being able to get a mortgage for the next few years and having to rent instead [renting is dead money, they say] or for having to pay a higher rate of interest on a sub prime deal.

The actual defaults are defective (if you look at the thread properly), and I'm in the process of having them removed, this is not a case of not wanting to pay, its a case that the information requested was not provided to which the lender has a legal obligation to provide me with. They did not and could not do that, and rather than come to an agreement they hounded me for for full payments and then just defaulted me via a third party in house group.

I do not see those tactics as fair or even legal, my credit score despite these defaults is good and shows i repay any legal debt i have on time.

I do not want this to become an argument, I'm fully aware of the legal background on consumer credit, I was asking for peoples opinions on if it was wise to apply for a mortgage again now, or simply just wait another couple of years, enjoy ourselves, save and then get a mortgage, but its just a case of when not if.

Ultimately it will be my decisions anyway what i do from here, but i thank those people in the know for there constructive comments.

rizel23

The_J wrote: »

Actually, it's the so called "trusted borrowers" who are the problem here. Your arrogance towards the banks is absolutely breathtaking.

You've basically stolen £2000 and tried to exploit a legal loophole to get off paying it. Think about it, if you gave £2000 to your neighbour and they turned round and said, I'm not giving that back to you because of "xyz" but 2 years later they came back to you and said "Can I have £120,000?" what would you say?

If it was up to me I'd never give you credit again.

The law is there for a reason, its not a "loop hole" its legal practice with strict guidelines to follow. The default listed in that thread is defective. Its not a loop hole its defective from that point of view the remedy time can not be meet and the original creditors address is not listed. These are both critical elements of serving a default correctly, which has not been adhered to in this case.

I have not stole anything, I'm happy to repay the full amounted required if my legal request for documents can be met. The simple answer is that they can not be provided, so any argument there is is on moral grounds not legal ones

Fortunately i will not be PM'ing for a loan :money:

Dave_Ham

rizel23 wrote: »

The law is there for a reason, its not a "loop hole" its legal practice with strict guidelines to follow. The default listed in that thread is defective. Its not a loop hole its defective from that point of view the remedy time can not be meet and the original creditors address is not listed. These are both critical elements of serving a default correctly, which has not been adhered to in this case.

Fortunately i will not be PM'ing for a loan :money:

Your logic is misguided, I am trying to be constructive.

So you go to a lender that manually underwrites a mortgage application, to mitigate the "computer says no" traditional bank response. This seems logical as you can demonstrate good behaviour in the last 3 years - it will need to be 3 years to get the defaults overlooked.

So the conversation goes:

Lender - Its all looking good here, can see 3 defaults from 2-3 years ago to credit card companies - what happened there - loss of job, marriage split, illness?

You No - I actually realised thanks to some people online that the money I had used may have an invalid contract. Did not pay and going to legally have it all sorted

Lender Nice work - close the door on your way out please..

In answer to your thread title - no its not worth re-applying elsewhere and given your forum usage, surely you would have realised that HSBC application was nothing short of stupidity.

The_J

So you admit you borrowed £2000. You admit you are using their poor administration to get out of paying that back.

I sincerely hope it is worth the time, effort and delayed mortgage applications for the sake of a measly 2 grand.

I also hope Karma has more in store for you :rotfl:. I genuinely couldn't live with myself in your position, knowing I owed money fairly.