mortgage application disclosure

JimmyTheWig

potatoefeet66 wrote: »

How much of the criteria must a customer meet most, part or all, everything.

You must meet all criteria, I'm afraid.

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.

The criteria to port will also include that you have to meet the criteria for a new loan. This is always the case.

potatoefeet66

Conrad wrote: »

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.

Sorry i did earn enough for new loan problem is lender did not want to discuss the figure until two years later period.

No it does not I agree however the fact still remains that the application was not conducted in accordance with the rules so it is illegitimate and therefore so is anything they have said as a reason why they would not allow the porting. Period.

potatoefeet66

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

You must meet all criteria, I'm afraid.


The criteria to port will also include that you have to meet the criteria for a new loan. This is always the case.

Thank you you've answered my problem I will now give up move on over mortgage lending criteria which i failed.

What is the minimum income level that could be assessed for loan?

So I'm now trying to get response from lender why application was not conducted in accordance to fsa rules, and why they cannot provide the application disclosure for the application and a breach in data protection.

Lets face it with the proof of a error or whatever you want to describe it everything they said regarding my failure to meet criteria does not stand as application was fraudulently manipulated outside of application fsa criteria. period.

Thanks for help.

JimmyTheWig

potatoefeet66 wrote: »

Thank you you've answered my problem I will now give up move on over mortgage lending criteria which i failed.

A sensible decision. Glad we got there in the end.

What is the minimum income level that could be assessed for loan?

I have no idea, I'm afraid. Not sure that there is one, per-se, though they may well have a minimum amount they will lend - which in effect sets the minimum income.
As has been said before, however, the problem wasn't that your income was low, per-se, but that it was falling self-employment income.
Consider someone employed earning £20,000 a year for the last three years. They still have the same job. You can be pretty sure they will be earning £20,000 this year, too.
Consider someone self-employed earning £20,000 a year for the last three years. They are still doing the same self-employment. You can be reasonably happy that they will earn £20,000 this year.
Consider someone self-employed who earned £40,000 then £30,000 then £20,000 for the last three years. I wouldn't be at all happy to say they would earn £20,000 this year. I'd probably guess they would earn £10,000 this year.

That's the difference.

So I'm now trying to get response from lender why application was not conducted in accordance to fsa rules, and why they cannot provide the application disclosure for the application and a breach in data protection.

Lets face it with the proof of a error or whatever you want to describe it everything they said regarding my failure to meet criteria does not stand as application was fraudulently manipulated outside of application fsa criteria. period.

All the best with that. It's too involved for me to get to grips with, but you seem to know all the issues.
The one thing I will say is that compensation for anything that went wrong will put you in the position that you would have been had it not gone wrong.
We have established that they were correct in not allowing you to port your mortgage. So had they done everything by the book then you would have been refused your port. As it was, you were refused your port.
You may have suffered some inconvenience due to them messing things up which you might get a goodwill gesture for.
Maybe there has been some real out-of-pocket expenses that you have incurred (e.g. having to pay to send faxes, etc, due to them messing things up) which you should certainly be compensated for.
But I can't see it amounting to much. £50, max, I'd say but probably £15 is more likely.

Forget, for the moment, about what they have done wrong.
Concentrate on what effect it has had on you. How have you lost out by them doing things wrong?

Conrad

As a very rough rule of thumb, about 3.5 x your net profit is what a lender can consider.

This is affected by the mortgage term and any debts you have.

potatoefeet66

The cases that you sighted are hypothetical, if the lender assessed an application for me to port 138k which my income could not support, and they have said that had my income supported the loan then id be in that house today that said on May 1st 2009. Therefore as the lender continued the process despite there original decline to port 138k they were still prepared to do business with me due to fact they conducted an appeal, however what actually was refused by the advisor who has no authority to assess the situation (her words) was an offer inline with the income.

Lender acknowledged income, but not at time of application as they just did not want me to be in any situation or consider the porting of the rate. either that or all secured property mortgages are worthless and we all be better of renting whats the point.

Fraud however and for what ever reason is a very serious criminal offence ( ombudsman's words) therefore no legitimate application was conducted by lender, breach of contract and data breach.

If they had declared me un credit worthy or i was in a position of default on my mortgage then they would be repossessing my mortgage but they could not. FSA rules mcob can customer show ability to repay loan other than from income.

Like I said if this is not fraud then they will have no issue with a final response on the subject either to me the ICO or FOS. A fact they still are unable to comply with.

hey if you all think this thread is hard to follow maybe i should start one on the Ombudsman where in his email to the lender he says i guote," all i need to know is are you happy( the lender) for us (fos) to conduct an investigation into the fraud allegation" this would really blow your mind. Your really don't want to know what the lenders response was ........

JimmyTheWig

potatoefeet66 wrote: »

The cases that you sighted are hypothetical

Yes, I made them up to give an example of falling self-employment income. You don't want to tell us your income for the relevant three years (which is up to you) so we have to talk hypothetically.

if the lender assessed an application for me to port 138k which my income could not support, and they have said that had my income supported the loan then id be in that house today that said on May 1st 2009.

Yes, if your income hadn't been falling then they would have ported the mortgage for you. I don't see anyone disagreeing with that.

Therefore as the lender continued the process despite there original decline to port 138k they were still prepared to do business with me due to fact they conducted an appeal

Ok, lets take this as an example.
You believe that they shouldn't have offered you an appeal. But they did. They got it wrong.
What did you lose out by them doing this appeal that they shouldn't have done?
I'm guessing nothing.
If you are right that they shouldn't have done it then I agree that you are entitled to compensation for the nothing that you have lost out here.

however what actually was refused by the advisor who has no authority to assess the situation (her words) was an offer inline with the income.

Maybe, if she had no authority to assess the situation, she refused it based on what she had been told to do.
But again, maybe, they got it wrong. Maybe she should have put the offer forwards to someone who did have the authority to assess the situation.
Given that we have agreed that you didn't get the mortgage due to falling self-employment income then if the advisor had put forward your suggestion then it would have come back as a "no" again.
So, again, even if she was in the wrong what have you lost out by her actions?

Lender acknowledged income, but not at time of application as they just did not want me to be in any situation or consider the porting of the rate.

What situation? That doesn't make sense.
Quite possibly they didn't want you to port the rate. Or possibly they really did want you to port the rate as it meant you would be paying a chunk off. What we can be pretty certain of is that they don't want to be lending at this rate. But so far I've heard nothing to suggest they should have let you port the rate, so I don't see what they wanted or didn't want to do is relevant.

either that or all secured property mortgages are worthless and we all be better of renting whats the point.

Don't see how that makes mortgages worthless. You've got one hell of a good mortgage product there. I wouldn't call that worthless.
Yes, some people are better off renting. I can't imagine that many people with the tiny rate that you have would be better off renting, however.

Fraud however and for what ever reason is a very serious criminal offence ( ombudsman's words)

I agree. Doesn't mean it happened, though.
And, again, even if it did happen I don't think it has affected you and so, however seriously it is treated, won't result in any compensation for you.

therefore no legitimate application was conducted by lender, breach of contract and data breach.

I don't know what this means. If you are refering to unsigned documents being processed then I find it hard to care. You applied for a mortgage. A mortgage application went through. I think it makes little difference to anyone whether it was signed or not. I think it makes little difference to anyone whether it went through on the 3rd or the 5th or whatever. if they had done it perfectly by the book you would have been refused. However they did do it, you were refused. Anything else seems irrelevant.

If they had declared me un credit worthy or i was in a position of default on my mortgage then they would be repossessing my mortgage but they could not. FSA rules mcob can customer show ability to repay loan other than from income.

None of this is relevant - you didn't meet the criteria, therefore you couldn't have the mortgage (or port).

potatoefeet66

Ok let us assume and I will for the sake of argument, please explain in accordance with fsa rules what is or would have been fair and reasonable in the treatment of an existing customer? ( i have read mcob and an FSA advisor for over an hour went through my case and advised I pursue lender over fraudulent application process irrespective of the outcome or my income status) last time I looked it was not illegal to fail income or any other lending criteria.

I was not declined due to a falling income year one was lower than year two and year three was not as low as year one and as it turned out year after was better than all put together.

as for the appeal then they could have offered and at that point were in terms of the rules still preparing to do business with me even if they had said we will lend 1 pound take it or leave it.Fact that they run of crying because I'm getting better deal than them hard cheese, but of course its me having to put up with hard cheese.

also the issue is that lets say I'm refused on 1st feb no chance of porting or lending. If i then go to my lender two months later and say hey look knock 80k of existing loan from equity how does the branch advisor have the right to refuse an existing customer the opportunity to submit offer to an underwriter, I may lave landed a high flying job in city banking she not to know unless the situation is looked at on its own merit. Not tell customer to go down road to bank next door.They mays well reposes my home.

Im more than happy with my mortgage and because I've worked and done my house up have a great home in 2009 i wanted to move for other reasons 0.84 pc is for now amazing while it lasts, yes Ive overpaying my balance by 50pc when i was on the svr my loan was 1040pcm now less than 550.no complaints here on that point.

A fraud is defined as any omission or manipulation with the purpose or intent to cause a financial loss. It certainly was not a process failure or manipulation to cause me financial gain.

Had i owed the lender more than the equity in my home i.e. say i had borrowed 80k on property of 100k value you can bet your bottom dollar they would not risk their money but as this is mine if i defaulted on the loan they win win win.

Like I said this is the tip of the ice burg the escalation with FOS is even more bizarre. thanks for all help cheers.

Thrugelmir

potatoefeet66 wrote: »

Ok let us assume and I will for the sake of argument, please explain in accordance with fsa rules what is or would have been fair and reasonable in the treatment of an existing customer? ( i have read mcob and an FSA advisor for over an hour went through my case and advised I pursue lender over fraudulent application process irrespective of the outcome or my income status) last time I looked it was not illegal to fail income or any other lending criteria.

I was not declined due to a falling income year one was lower than year two and year three was not as low as year one and as it turned out year after was better than all put together.

as for the appeal then they could have offered and at that point were in terms of the rules still preparing to do business with me even if they had said we will lend 1 pound take it or leave it.Fact that they run of crying because I'm getting better deal than them hard cheese, but of course its me having to put up with hard cheese.

also the issue is that lets say I'm refused on 1st feb no chance of porting or lending. If i then go to my lender two months later and say hey look knock 80k of existing loan from equity how does the branch advisor have the right to refuse an existing customer the opportunity to submit offer to an underwriter, I may lave landed a high flying job in city banking she not to know unless the situation is looked at on its own merit. Not tell customer to go down road to bank next door.They mays well reposes my home.

Im more than happy with my mortgage and because I've worked and done my house up have a great home in 2009 i wanted to move for other reasons 0.84 pc is for now amazing while it lasts, yes Ive overpaying my balance by 50pc when i was on the svr my loan was 1040pcm now less than 550.no complaints here on that point.

A fraud is defined as any omission or manipulation with the purpose or intent to cause a financial loss. It certainly was not a process failure or manipulation to cause me financial gain.

Had i owed the lender more than the equity in my home i.e. say i had borrowed 80k on property of 100k value you can bet your bottom dollar they would not risk their money but as this is mine if i defaulted on the loan they win win win.

Like I said this is the tip of the ice burg the escalation with FOS is even more bizarre. thanks for all help cheers.

You can waffle and conplain as much as you like.

None of this changes the fact that your current lender is under no obligation to offer you a new mortgage. That's the hard fact. You have no rights in this regard.

potatoefeet66

Thrugelmir wrote: »

You can waffle and conplain as much as you like.

None of this changes the fact that your current lender is under no obligation to offer you a new mortgage. That's the hard fact. You have no rights in this regard.

Hard facts are something i Know i suspect more than the average individual, having been homeless and got myself out of that situation sleeping in my car and an old bath in a factory unit in 1997-98 i figure i know more about that them than you.

Also i hazard a guess i know more about FSA MCOB than you do.
yes I agree there is no obligation for lender to offer me a new mortgage however as fiduciary (look it up) they have an obligation to act comply to the process rules. X