Nationwide refused mortgage last min with strange excuse - help!

sweetpeagreen

GMS wrote: »

Could your father in law not raise a small mortgage on his current property meaning the second mortgage ould be reduced to fit in LTV limits?

Not read all of the thread so apologies if I have missed the answer somewhere.

Unfortunately I just don't think he would consider this

sweetpeagreen

bobsyourteapots wrote: »

Did you find out if it was the broker or NW at fault?
personally to me it sounds like the broker didn't include the other property as its mortgage free, i'd be inclined to say it is more his error than the banks.

Well, yes the more I think about it the more I think the initial error was the brokers, as he should have been aware of their criteria from the start, and if he was he shouldn't have even approached them. However, he claims that he has a telephone transcript of the conversation between him and Nationwide that proves he provided full and accurate info, so if this is true then Nationwide also made an error. We personally filled in a paper application form (required because 3 applicants), so my father-in-law owning a mortgage free house was definitely declared and has then been missed by both the broker and lender up until the minute we were due the promised offer!

At this stage our priority is to get something sorted so the house purchase doesn't collapse. We will be putting in a complaint once moved in (should this happen), and plan to escalate it to the financial ombudsman. In the mean time we will be thinking what compensation would be fair to request as part of our complaint.

:mad:

Thrugelmir

sweetpeagreen wrote: »

so my father-in-law owning a mortgage free house was definitely declared and has then been missed by both the broker and lender up until the minute we were due the promised offer!

Lenders will be far more interested in the ability of the parties to afford the mortgage than illiquid collaterall.

sweetpeagreen

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Lenders will be far more interested in the ability of the parties to afford the mortgage than illiquid collaterall.

The thing is, we can afford the mortgage and they agreed we could hence it getting to the stage where they informed us we will have the offer within 48hrs. It's at the 48th hour they spotted they had made an error. We weren't turned down based on affordability or credit score, just a technicality - being their criteria states they will only led max 85% to those who already own a property (mortgage free). They even admitted that this doesn't effect our ability to afford the mortgage, but 'rules are rules'.