mortgage application disclosure

cwcw

Oh dear. See comments:

http://www.lovemoney.com/news/property-and-mortgages/mortgages/17858/why-ignoring-tracker-mortgages-will-cost-you-?showcomments=true#comment193871

http://www.lovemoney.com/news/property-and-mortgages/mortgages/14375/how-an-offset-mortgage-can-save-you-8000?showcomments=true#comment172436

http://www.lovemoney.com/news/property-and-mortgages/mortgages/13226/why-i-hate-this-mortgage?showcomments=true#comment165581



There's also a blog and much much more. Just Google potatoefeet66.

OP - please listen. I am a bit concerned that you have become obsessed with this issue. You need to let it go and get on with your life. What happened sounds like it was not fraud, but simply being turned down for a mortgage based on lending criteria, combined with some clerical incompetence.

I agree that porting a mortgage to a lower amount than your existing balance makes no sense to be denied - logically it should be treated as the same mortgage rather than a new one. But that's not how it is, so that's what we have to work with. Time to move on, you could make yourself ill over this.

_Andy_

I disagree. This thread is genius and should be continued. C'mon guys we're nearly at page 10. Keep up the love

Thrugelmir

cwcw wrote: »

I agree that porting a mortgage to a lower amount than your existing balance makes no sense to be denied - logically it should be treated as the same mortgage rather than a new one.

That's not logically. As there's a new contract. A mortgage is not transferred. As a mortgage is a charge placed to secure a debt. A mortgage is little more than a (secured) loan.

cwcw

Thrugelmir wrote: »

That's not logically. As there's a new contract. A mortgage is not transferred. As a mortgage is a charge placed to secure a debt. A mortgage is little more than a (secured) loan.

I said:" logically it should be treated as the same mortgage rather than a new one."

I know that it isn't transferred. I'm saying it should be, if the amount is the same or less, and the property meets the LTV criteria. If someone wants to downsize and have a smaller mortgage, then a "portable" mortgage should be just that.

It doesn't make any logical sense to tell someone that they must stay paying off a large debt because they don't quite fit the criteria to repay a much smaller debt. Complete folly.

<sebb>

I'm surprised no-one has pointed this out (or maybe they have but this thread is giving me brain freeze and I've probably completely misunderstood), but this alleged "fraud" appears to have massively back-fired on the lender and hugely benefited the OP.

Instead of reducing their exposure to a larger loan at an eye-popping .84% pa interest rate, in the hope that the OP would be so desperate to move they would re-mortgage elsewhere and get rid of the entire unprofitable loan from their books, the OP retained the existing loan.

Not only that, but the OP was about to sell his house for £300K a few years ago, which is now worth £450k to date and he still has the 0.84% tracker mortgage.

If I was the OP, I'd be relishing the fact that the bank's "fraud" actually cost them money and resulted in substantial profits for the OP. Not really sure what there is to complain about.

Furthermore, if the OP communicated with the bank in the same manner as he has on this thread, it is no wonder the staff were confused, which probably resulted in the process errors that the OP believes to be fraud.

Wutang_2

Donny Darko

Cracking film.......

.......no more please.....Potato-man wins

_Andy_

Exactly how does one 'suck a f*ck'?

bobsyourteapots

_Andy_ wrote: »

Exactly how does one 'suck a f*ck'?

with a rubber duck?

potatoefeet66

<sebb> wrote: »

I'm surprised no-one has pointed this out (or maybe they have but this thread is giving me brain freeze and I've probably completely misunderstood), but this alleged "fraud" appears to have massively back-fired on the lender and hugely benefited the OP.

Instead of reducing their exposure to a larger loan at an eye-popping .84% pa interest rate, in the hope that the OP would be so desperate to move they would re-mortgage elsewhere and get rid of the entire unprofitable loan from their books, the OP retained the existing loan.

Not only that, but the OP was about to sell his house for £300K a few years ago, which is now worth £450k to date and he still has the 0.84% tracker mortgage.

If I was the OP, I'd be relishing the fact that the bank's "fraud" actually cost them money and resulted in substantial profits for the OP. Not really sure what there is to complain about.

Furthermore, if the OP communicated with the bank in the same manner as he has on this thread, it is no wonder the staff were confused, which probably resulted in the process errors that the OP believes to be fraud.

Im Back..... cracking night out lads..... I agreed a sale on my house at 300K in the Decmber 2008 i had had it on the market since May 08 it was actually valued on the market at 375K however due to the market situation at the time and the fact I did not want to chase the market down i dropped my price by yes you worked it out 75K, mad yes but I have enough equity to do that and still purchase other house. and yes now the house is completed maket value 450k but i would sell if i wanted or needed to for far less as explained.......but there is little point with an overpaid mortgage at .08pc. Ive paid down my loan in the last 3 half years due to the rate another 35k in the equity bank.... which the lender by using fraud won't allow to be realised........

I would like to point out that the abuse by certain individuals has lost you all professional credit you have done the genuine professionals on this site no good at all......it just goes to show how mindless and intellectually backwards some people are..... thank you for watching.

_Andy_

FENTON!!! FENNNNTTTOOOONN!!! Oh Jesus Christ! FENTON!!!!