mortgage application disclosure

potatoefeet66

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

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.
As for losses had they not altered the application process then i agree proably not much i can whine about but the fact is they have altered the process if I was going to fail criteria for any reason what alter process if I was a new customer i would just not secure loan from them no harm done , losses £300k failed sale , 575K loss of detached property based on post code value, prevention of reducing existing loan by min 10 years in one lump sum repayment ±75K, 3 years of stress and damages ?. so yes we are talking of serious money here. besides the damage this would do to their mortgage book, no ones mortgage is safe when lenders get away with altering the application rules.

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.

If I may clear this up i fully understand about criteria and you rightly said if i walked into a branch and asked for a mortgage on a falling income then I agree no lending . Firstly i did not just walk in I've had this mortgage since 1999 with same lender, I am an existing customer who has been in my profession since I was 17.I was not declared unemployed by lender.

So I satisfied the LTV 60-40 lending criteria as i had 92k deposit plus a further 80k Plus however lender refused to allow porting because i now wanted to pay back loan and income would now only support a smaller figure.

I bought my home for 229k in 2005 I've spent my money doing it up and now the referb and extensions finished is valued today market about 460K, I've not sat back hoping for house prices to continue to boom I've worked on this project, the lender has committed fraud and breached fsa process and reneged on contract. Probable bit hard to accept but never the less fact. like I said I will have to wait to see what happens, But I will take this lender to court at some point if they do not sort this out.

The lender has not said my application was declined due to a falling income but they income would not support loan being asked to be ported 138k. But the advisor not the underwriter failed to disclose my 80k reduction. Lender rather late in day said to FOS they would have only lent xyz, not I was unlenderble to.The product has a ltv criteria of 60-40pc that i met and had substantially more, if I met some criteria fsa responsible lending to existing customer would have been to allow porting of balance supported by assessed income.

losses 300k failed sale 575K loss on purchase based on post code detached value, 10 year mortgage term reduction 75K± 3years or more of stress and damages so yes we are talking of serious money. Our mortgages are not safe if lenders are allowed to alter regulated rules, and the damage this would do to the lender reputation, no one would entree into a mortgage with this company again, as they manipulate the process to suit them when the chips are down on them.

As for record keeping and other stuff if its human error or system failures whats stopping lender from a simple explanation and apology,Nothing, as it is a fraudulent manipulation by staff with lenders purpose to claw back rate. Sorry You are Mistaken

Dave_Ham

Its like an addiction for me..

As I said last time on about post 4,316, the salient point is that they I assume told you that you were declined and not that you could not borrow enough.

This will all come down to human error and you may get a small compo payout. Weigh this up against the grief and stress you are putting on yourself, and us with the bombardment of posts.

Fight your corner the correct way; rants, accusations and generally moaning and groaning on here is not going to achieve anything - we cannot judge, merely offer opinion which you are not really after as you just disagree in any case and come up with the same old, same old.

Move on with your life and let the correct authorities "judge" what has gone on.

If everyone keeps saying no, not everyone can be wrong.

Maybe take it to the European Courts, bet they will love a bit of this..

Well and truly out now

_Andy_

!!!!!! this is getting ludicrous now.

JimmyTheWig

potatoefeet66 wrote: »

If I may clear this up i fully understand about criteria and you rightly said if i walked into a branch and asked for a mortgage on a falling income then I agree no lending .

That is all there is to it, I'm afraid. Full stop.

Remember what we were talking about many pages back about having to meet the criteria for a new loan when you want to port? E.g.

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

1. Do you understand (whether you agree it is right or not) that when a customer wants to port a mortgage they have to meet the criteria for the new loan as if it was a new application?

potatoefeet66 wrote: »

1) yes

You didn't meet the criteria for a new loan and so can't port. That's it.


There may have been some of the criteria that you met (e.g. loan to value), but one show-stopper is a show-stopper.
There may have been a hundred and one other things that have gone wrong. They may have made various errors, deliberate or otherwise. But from what I can see you didn't qualify to port your mortgage.
They may have given you the wrong reason for the rejection. That's a shame. It's incompetent, potentially. But it doesn't change the fact that you didn't qualify.

You have agreed (at least in the past) that to port a mortgage you need to fit the criteria to be accepted for a new mortgage. (Whether or not you or anyone else agrees with this rule doesn't come in to it, this is the rule.)
You have agreed now that you didn't fit the criteria for a new mortgage.
Then, surely, you must agree that it was within the rules that you weren't allowed to port your mortgage?

potatoefeet66

Hey Look gents Andy nd Dave, everything is in place the superior authorities are dealing with this some now for three years , no one has told me I'm wrong, even your intellect has recognised at some point errors worthy of recompense.

But Hay big boys lets not now after all this time get personal their might be children reading lol. ttfn x

potatoefeet66

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

That is all there is to it, I'm afraid. Full stop.

Remember what we were talking about many pages back about having to meet the criteria for a new loan when you want to port? E.g.



You didn't meet the criteria for a new loan and so can't port. That's it.


There may have been some of the criteria that you met (e.g. loan to value), but one show-stopper is a show-stopper.
There may have been a hundred and one other things that have gone wrong. They may have made various errors, deliberate or otherwise. But from what I can see you didn't qualify to port your mortgage.
They may have given you the wrong reason for the rejection. That's a shame. It's incompetent, potentially. But it doesn't change the fact that you didn't qualify.

You have agreed (at least in the past) that to port a mortgage you need to fit the criteria to be accepted for a new mortgage. (Whether or not you or anyone else agrees with this rule doesn't come in to it, this is the rule.)
You have agreed now that you didn't fit the criteria for a new mortgage.
Then, surely, you must agree that it was within the rules that you weren't allowed to port your mortgage?

Come on You know and I'm not a mortgage advisor FSA rules are clearly defined as to the responsible action of lenders to customers acting with customer interest at heart, this is not to say they have to lend a dime to everyone who walks into their branches.

JimmyTheWig

potatoefeet66 wrote: »

Come on You know and I'm not a mortgage advisor FSA rules are clearly defined as to the responsible action of lenders to customers acting with customer interest at heart, this is not to say they have to lend a dime to everyone who walks into their branches.

I really don't know what this means.
Is this you agreeing with what I said?

Conrad

You do not pass the responsible lending test, it really is THAT simple.

All your guff about your income in the past is 100% irrelevant.

A person can qualify for a £1m mortgage one day, and a £50k mortgage a year later when thier earnings and other factors change.


The FSA's 'Treating Customers Fairly' (TCF) rules, require a lender to lend only that which your current income and circumstances dictate as affordable.

The fact you may already be paying a larger mortgage each month is again 100% irrelevant.

potatoefeet66

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

I really don't know what this means.
Is this you agreeing with what I said?

No, I'm not agreeing with you on all aspects, How much of the criteria must a customer meet most, part or all, everything.

you said Remember what we were talking about many pages back about having to meet the criteria for a new loan when you want to port? E.g.



You didn't meet the criteria for a new loan and so can't port. That's it.

But I met criteria to port my contract says you can port as long as criteria o 40pc deposit is available against 60pc loan. i met criteria for new loan just that the only figure the lender was prepared to discuss was not within multiples of my assessed income.

really they should have defaulted my loan yes. because they no longer wanted my business. like i said a while back why after application proceed with further appeal if i did not meet one or all of criteria.

So I met ltv 60-40pc criteria 92k deposit further 80k
no ccjs or debt,
perfectly run mortgage since 1999
income from approved source
on electoral roll
confirmed address
reducing balance.

what else oh wrong colour shirt and tie, on tuesdays they don't lend to customers in blue. come on. wrong product at 0.84pc wanting to port and reduce loan meaning basically they knew id be getting almost an interest free loan clearing balance well within 6 years instead of 16. no I think You all should know better.

we will see I will post the outcome as i receive it first in due on fri is level one from FOS but I suspect they won't meet that deadline on the matters put to them. second ICO who i spoke with yesterday and are investigating disclosure issue and kfi dates not tallying with application, and fact that search was conducted with credit agency without permission = data breach.

Till then, then

Conrad

potatoefeet66 wrote: »

i met criteria for new loan just that the only figure the lender was prepared to discuss was not within multiples of my assessed income.

You don't earn enough to support the new loan, period.

The fact you have large deposit and have been making payments does not allow any lender to waive income criteria.