mortgage application disclosure

cwcw

Simon_gloster wrote: »

Your not seeing the bigger picture. Its all about Point of Sale and responsibilty at that time, not what happened 8 years and up to date payment history.

Should the op have adverse credit and decide to downsize, clear credit reduce ltv then an underwriter would probably consider it should it pass affordability rules.

Affordability is king here.

If they did default then its not the lenders fault it is!!!! Come on this is silly.

The bigger picture is exactly what I'm seeing. Banks lent irresponsibly all those years ago for a fast buck. They should now take responsibility and let people port their mortgages against a reduced balance by downsizing. Their risk becomes lower, and so does the customer's. The customer's current criteria is equally relevant to their existing, larger debt, compared with their proposed, smaller debt. I would say more relevant, actually.

potatoefeet66

GMS wrote: »

The criteria is clear. Meet current lending criteria or get declined. As mad as it sounds that they would rather you had a higher mortgage it is the way it is.

Imagine the headlines if they allowed somebody to port to a lesser mortgage with credit cards they didn't have previously, loans they didn't have, CCJ's and defaults, no income etc. 'Irresponsible Banks' etc, plus any number of ambulance chasing claims companies looking for compensation.

I am not suggesting this is the OP situation but it serves to highlight why a mortgage cannot simply be moved without checks.

I certainly agree with everything that you say here, but would such a customer circumstances as obviously they won't meet criteria reguire a manipulation of the process so as to prevent a mortgage reduction and porting, no they would not. but simply refusing customer with none of the above issues the consideration to add more capital to the deposit is not responsible lending is it.

im not opposed to checks on me at all just that only one figure was put on the table in my case 138k you don't meet income criteria for that and we don't want to discuss any other figure thats not right is it, and I'm not talking of a couple of grand I'm talking reduction of 60 -82k dropping ltv to car loan levels.

cwcw

Here is an analogy for the logic...

A weight lifter is struggling to hold up 60kg weights. He is visibly tiring and begs the trainer to swap the 60kg with 40kg. The trainer refuses as he believes the weight lifter is not strong enough to lift the 40kg and would be much better suited to be left struggling with the 60kg instead. The trainer originally assessed 60kg would be fine, and even with evidence that it isn't, he won't reduce it now. The weight lifter must therefore continue under the strain, or collapse under the weight.

potatoefeet66

I would like to add make clear I've never defaulted and certainly was not down sizing due to debts or ccj... I've just don't see point in preventing the use of profit to reduce mortgage debt i wasn't going out buying a new car but putting my profits back into my home as I've always done. My application process was fraudulently manipulated with the hope i go else where or default. neither occurred and I'm still join to see that this is concluded.

cwcw

Another analogy, somewhat ironic:

A bank was struggling under the mountain of its debts. It begged the government for a capital injection, or else it would collapse and be unable to meet its debts. The government assessed the bank's viability for the injection and decided, even though it would stand a better chance of surviving under the reduced debts, it did not meet its strict criteria, and refused the capital injection. Imagine that. :rotfl:

potatoefeet66

GMS wrote: »

KFI issued 2 days before the application submitted is not unusual. KFI can be done there and then with the application sent to underwriters. 48 hours seems a reasonable timescale.

Yes I agree 48hours is perfectly reasonable but 13mins two days later is not. As you said KFI can be done there and then, so if application took 13min on the 5th why log a kfi ref valid for only one day produced of the 3rd.

The credit search was carried out on the 5th but the lenders advisor say disclosure is not available as it was destroyed shortly after as application was declined. thats rubbish.

JimmyTheWig

Ok, OP. Can I establish some facts and some of your opinions? Could you answer the following...

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?

2. Was your declared income at the time of the application to port too low for the amount you asked to borrow?

3. How long did it take them to tell you that the application had failed?

4. How were you told that it had failed (e.g. over the phone, letter, etc)?

5. Were you told the problem with the application was your income?

6. I understand that they didn't tell you how much they would lend you with your income, but was it left reasonably open-ended (e.g. "please contact us if we can be of any further help") or was it all very final (e.g. "there is nothing more we can do for you")?

7. Had they have told you how much you could port at the time, could you have made the house move happen?

8. Are they still willing to lend some money on a port? Is this enough to allow the house move to happen now?

potatoefeet66

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Ok, OP. Can I establish some facts and some of your opinions? Could you answer the following...

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?

2. Was your declared income at the time of the application to port too low for the amount you asked to borrow?

3. How long did it take them to tell you that the application had failed?

4. How were you told that it had failed (e.g. over the phone, letter, etc)?

5. Were you told the problem with the application was your income?

6. I understand that they didn't tell you how much they would lend you with your income, but was it left reasonably open-ended (e.g. "please contact us if we can be of any further help") or was it all very final (e.g. "there is nothing more we can do for you")?

7. Had they have told you how much you could port at the time, could you have made the house move happen?

8. Are they still willing to lend some money on a port? Is this enough to allow the house move to happen now?

1) yes
2) yes
3) same day 3rd feb
4) phone call from advisor
5) Told was due to income self certified. As advisor called only two hours before application to tell me she would not fast track application. I asked well what do I do now she advised I come in and proceed with application and submit income figures reduced from what was declared in 2005 when they advanced me the original figure.
6)open ended supply income tax returns
7)yes.

I was duped into a spoof application on the 3rd but its actually recorded as being conducted and logged on 5th but with kfi of the 3rd

look its complicated but when you see the documents its clear that its fraud.Had the application to port been granted LTV would have reduced to less than 20pc and once I had completed some basic refers it wout have had a property with LTV less than 15pc.

I stayed put as i did not want to be forced of rate and my current home one I was selling is now completed and valued in excess of 450K today. thats what I've always done.

potatoefeet66

As I understand an underwriters role in part is to assess the risk of customer defaulting on the loan. why would i after nine years default on a mortgage with 85pc of my capital in the property. Im not irresponsible the lender has been.

Conrad

potatoefeet66 wrote: »

not when i wasn't even in branch how can an application be declined before its assessed by underwriter.

.

A point of sale advisor can decline to deal with a case, indeed, FSA rules insist this is the case where the advisor has reason to consider the case unsafe / not within the rules.

Have you tried a complaint to the lenders compliance department? That way you HAVE to be given an answer as to why the decline.
I haven't got time to read the whole thread, so you may have already complained.

This thing about the annex would deter most lenders as there are all manner of legal, insurance and compliance implications.