mortgage application disclosure

Simon_gloster

This is like a 3333333333 rpm record, but worse. Stop posting then.

Your wrong, end of. By the way, you never answered my simple tax question....what did you declare for the last 3 years. Not difficult or TAXING?

potatoefeet66

Simon_gloster wrote: »

This is like a 3333333333 rpm record, but worse. Stop posting then.

Your wrong, end of. By the way, you never answered my simple tax question....what did you declare for the last 3 years. Not difficult or TAXING?

hahahaha keep ya hair on..... no I'm sorry I'm not wrong I'm afraid the evidence I've got has been looked at by two independents a lawyer all of whom agree with the FSA. My tax affairs are nothing to do with you or 2010 - 2012 to do with my assessed income in 2009.

If Im wrong don't lose any sleep over me posting will you.

This lender whether you like it or not committed fraud by manipulating a regulated process and cannot provide legal a document.

Simon_gloster

Absolute !!!!. You should have had compensation by now...what rubbish lawyers you have if its gone on for 3 years. You must be bored.

Affordability and credit worthiness along with many other factors determine a mortgage, not when a KFI is issues to you.

Income from 09-12 please or are you avoiding this again? Only to see if its a goer from the outset.

Trust me i'll lose no sleep over this.

potatoefeet66

Simon_gloster wrote: »

This is like a 3333333333 rpm record, but worse. Stop posting then.

Your wrong, end of. By the way, you never answered my simple tax question....what did you declare for the last 3 years. Not difficult or TAXING?

Anyway why not read any other post there are plenty.
Please tell me what Im wrong about that after lender credit checked and assessed an application and declined it on whatever failure you want to mention, and then went further to offer and conduct an appeal even though there was no point and they no longer wanted my business. I don't know what your mortgage says but my says your home may be repossessed if you do not keep up repayments not if your income status changes. am I wrong they without a disclosure document no legitimate application can be declared as being conducted fairly. I could go on but I'm sure you better post to sort out and offer your superior professional explanations to. Fraud like or lump it.

Simon_gloster

Mortgage offers are subject to no changes in tour circumstances. Should they change, and 9.5 times out of 10 they do, then meeting the criteria at that time of applying is the final point. Am I missing something potatoeman? You know i've read the thread, I just dont see, honestly, what your problem is in the nicest possible way. People either fit policy or not without further intervention from underwriters.

Never mind, repost in 2015 with an outcome.

JimmyTheWig

potatoefeet66 wrote: »

14) They declined me as i had told them my income had reduced income status change.keep in mind this is the 3rd Feb and I was only told two hours before my application to port was not going to happen.
...
16) I asked advisor told she would not consider anything I put on the table.it was clear it was due to my rate an attempt to claw back product rate push me off it.income not support 138K this was the only figure discussed despite my capital equity offer, branch advisor refused to ask underwriter.

Ok, I've got it!
It's like someone said earlier.
The problem is that you were self-employed in a difficult economic climate with reducing income. Even some of the big players aren't able to keep afloat at the moment; it seemed to the mortgage company that you might be going out of business.
So it wasn't, per-se, your income level that was the problem. It was that your income level was falling.
In which case lending you anything would be seen as risky.

Lets say a self employed person earns £100,000 one year, £60,000 the next year and £20,000 the next year. If I was a mortgage company, I wouldn't lend them the same amount of money that I would lend someone with a £20,000 a year job. I'd be worried that next year they'd be making any profit at all and so become unable to repay any mortgage.

So there was no need to consider your suggestion of a smaller offer. They didn't want to lend you anything because your self-employment income was falling.
This sounds reasonable to me. But I don't make or enforce the rules. Maybe others can agree or disagree.
But do you, at least, now see why they declined you?

15) because I had no reason to believe that it would not be ported as 138K was a reduced figure of existing balance, and I had been told application was to be fast tracked. Lamb to slaughter.

Fair enough to apply on that basis. But as someone earlier said you are on shaky ground with this. You're almost saying that you tried to dodge the full process by going fast-tracked not to make things faster (which is, presumably, the point of it) but because you knew you'd fail the full process.

look it is a mad mad senario but this is an internal manipulation and breach of FSA rules and fraud. No disclosure documentation credit check and underwritten decision. If they no longer as an existing customer wanted my business why conduct an appeal with me for same figure and if I was not meeting criteria why alter manipulate the process to start with. Sorry mr although your an existing customer we cannot and no longer want your business. this should have been raised over a month before. You real all need to look at the documents. Once I have the reports from ICO over the lender and the FOS i will be posting evidence on web.

Ok, we've now established why they didn't want to lend to you. We've already established that the rules are that if they didn't want to lend to you then they will refuse to port a mortgage (even if that seems like a safer option to reasonable people).
Now that's established (which is the main thing) I'm happy (eek!) to listen to your other concerns.
I understand that you are not happy with the procedures that were followed, that some of the dates don't tie up, that stuff was processed without your signature.
Given that none of that has had any effect, ultimately, on the final outcome, what do you think you have lost by any of this happening? It is more important at this point to concentrate on how you have lost out rather than on what the bank has done wrong.
If you haven't personally lost anything, other than suffered a bit of inconvenience, then the best thing you can do is to ask the bank nicely for a goodwill gesture.

potatoefeet66

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Ok, I've got it!
It's like someone said earlier.
The problem is that you were self-employed in a difficult economic climate with reducing income. Even some of the big players aren't able to keep afloat at the moment; it seemed to the mortgage company that you might be going out of business.
So it wasn't, per-se, your income level that was the problem. It was that your income level was falling.
In which case lending you anything would be seen as risky.

Lets say a self employed person earns £100,000 one year, £60,000 the next year and £20,000 the next year. If I was a mortgage company, I wouldn't lend them the same amount of money that I would lend someone with a £20,000 a year job. I'd be worried that next year they'd be making any profit at all and so become unable to repay any mortgage.

So there was no need to consider your suggestion of a smaller offer. They didn't want to lend you anything because your self-employment income was falling.
This sounds reasonable to me. But I don't make or enforce the rules. Maybe others can agree or disagree.
But do you, at least, now see why they declined you?



Fair enough to apply on that basis. But as someone earlier said you are on shaky ground with this. You're almost saying that you tried to dodge the full process by going fast-tracked not to make things faster (which is, presumably, the point of it) but because you knew you'd fail the full process.



Ok, we've now established why they didn't want to lend to you. We've already established that the rules are that if they didn't want to lend to you then they will refuse to port a mortgage (even if that seems like a safer option to reasonable people).
Now that's established (which is the main thing) I'm happy (eek!) to listen to your other concerns.
I understand that you are not happy with the procedures that were followed, that some of the dates don't tie up, that stuff was processed without your signature.
Given that none of that has had any effect, ultimately, on the final outcome, what do you think you have lost by any of this happening? It is more important at this point to concentrate on how you have lost out rather than on what the bank has done wrong.
If you haven't personally lost anything, other than suffered a bit of inconvenience, then the best thing you can do is to ask the bank nicely for a goodwill gesture.

Thanks for your understanding I do not have to much of an issue with what you are saying. However, as was declared by lender customer relations team why was I not offered a figure inline with my income at the time i.e. its this figure or nothing, my mortgage contract does not say to port or have further lending of a reduced amount I have to stay in the same income status bracket, further more the figure the lender put forward to FOS in 2011 is a bit late in the day to say we would have only offered this amount. Had at the time the lender said we are only prepared to offer xyz then they would have been in breach of my contract as i can take all parts of the product, therefore it was all or nothing due to the interest rate.No I was not at all bothered if they were or were not fast racking my application, whatever it was two hours before application to call customer and expect them to supply evidence of income is not right as they could have made this point back in Jan 3rd when they started the process with out my knowledge.

Your arguments do not alter the issue that they after the decline conducted an appeal FSA rules in mcob clearly state that when a customer cannot afford or it is clear there is an issue of some form or another the process should not be continued by lender.

Look I realise its hard to believe of understand but like I said if i failed current lending criteria why manipulate the process, which is exactly what I've uncovered the spoof application took place on the 3rd the advisor then destroyed the disclosure documents processed the application on the 5th having told me it was declined on the third.
Had the application been agreed with out the disclosure document there would be no legal obligation for me to repay lending . like wise with out it there was never any fair and right assessment conducted by lender. As an existing customer I have a right to use my capital equity even if its to repay my loan and clear off with the bit left this was stopped by lender as no formal process can be proved as ever having taken place, due to omission of documents this is fraud with the sole intent to cause financial loss.

Dave_Ham

Still - 1 more post for a 100

_Andy_

Dave_Ham wrote: »

Still - 1 more post for a 100

Oh dear God no

JimmyTheWig

potatoefeet66 wrote: »

my mortgage contract does not say to port or have further lending of a reduced amount I have to stay in the same income status bracket

No, you are still missing the point.
This is nothing about porting.
If you walked into a branch and told them that your self-employment income was falling year after year then they wouldn't give you a mortgage. That's what they are saying. They're not going to give you a mortgage based on your last year's earnings, because the chances are (because your income is falling) that this year you will earn less and next year earn less again.
If your income had fallen but then stabilised at a new lower level then they could have lent based on that. But as it appeared to be falling each year it would suggest that it has got further to fall.

For this reason you failed the criteria for a new mortgage. This is also the criteria you have to pass to port your existing mortgage.


Listen, I have no idea what happened on the 3rd, the 5th or the month before.
Maybe everything was above board.
Maybe their systems are a bit poor and don't record things accurately.
Maybe a member of staff made a mistake and had to put something through twice.
I don't know.
But I don't think it was fraudulent on their part. Because I don't think you met their criteria.

So you are, by and large, in the position you would have been if the whole thing had gone smoothly and by the book. You are in the position of them having declined your request to port your mortgage.
If you are in a worse position by some other means (e.g. you've had to pay an application fee that you wouldn't have needed to otherwise) then by all means claim from them, but we're not talking much here I'm afraid.
If you haven't suffered as a result of it then there is nothing for you to claim from them having not followed procedures.

But the main thing you need to understand is why you were not allowed to port your mortgage. You were not allowed to port your mortgage because you failed the criteria for getting a new mortgage. You failed the criteria for getting a new mortgage because your self-employed income was falling.