mortgage application disclosure

JimmyTheWig

potatoefeet66 wrote: »

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.

Thanks for these answers. It makes things clearer in my head.
So what you are saying is that at this point the problem wasn't that your income was too low it was that you were relying on an income figure that you told them you had rather than an income figure that you had shown them you had.

Two further questions...
9. Were you aware (or are you at least now aware) that in general banks don't allow "self-cert" mortgages these days?

10. Did you take your income tax returns into the bank?

11. What were you told next?

Conrad

potatoefeet66 wrote: »

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.

Happens all the time. Things change, people change, events take over.

Downsizing is always viewed with caution as it can indicate financial stress on the horizon. For example someone might have become an addict to gambling or booze, or embittered by a Woman. Perhaps a check on thier company reveals the clients firm has been taking on debt / changed it's name etc. These things are not black n white.

Have you tried another lender? A good broker might be able help here as they have experience as to how to frame complex cases.

JimmyTheWig

Conrad wrote: »

Have you tried another lender?

No point, I'd imagine, if the OP is currently paying 0.84%.

potatoefeet66

Conrad wrote: »

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.

No You'd really have to read most of this to get any idea. Yes I am aware of FSA rules and as I was with advisor on 3rd and she issued a kfi for the exact figure if I was not meeting criteria why formally continue wit an application on the 5th.

The lenders specialist complaint team at Head office refuse to issue any response they called me last week and sent letter.

Therefore I've taken my case to the ICO as FOS cannot investigate alleged fraud.

potatoefeet66

Conrad wrote: »

Happens all the time. Things change, people change, events take over.

Downsizing is always viewed with caution as it can indicate financial stress on the horizon. For example someone might have become an addict to gambling or booze, or embittered by a Woman. Perhaps a check on thier company reveals the clients firm has been taking on debt / changed it's name etc. These things are not black n white.

Have you tried another lender? A good broker might be able help here as they have experience as to how to frame complex cases.

yes thats a point i suppose but not applicable in this instance.this was more of a sideways move from a 1930 semi to a 1900 detached property which was substantially worth more after renovations as I have done to the house i was selling originally purchased for 229k in 2005 and now in 2012 valued at 450k.

potatoefeet66

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Thanks for these answers. It makes things clearer in my head.
So what you are saying is that at this point the problem wasn't that your income was too low it was that you were relying on an income figure that you told them you had rather than an income figure that you had shown them you had.

Two further questions...
9. Were you aware (or are you at least now aware) that in general banks don't allow "self-cert" mortgages these days?

10. Did you take your income tax returns into the bank?

11. What were you told next?

no what I'm saying is that the advisor on the morning of the application 3rd of Feb called to say she was not fast tracking my application. she and the underwriter had on the 3rd of jan extracted details of my position status mortgage rate, in the bank a month prior to any formal application being booked. why had they had not notified me before hand if there was an issue. any way in the call two hours prior to my interview i was told my application would now have to go to underwriting i ask what i should do I was advised to continue with application so i went to branch for noon appointment the income that was submitted were the approximate figures that were for the original advance in 2005 i was advised to do this by branch advisor. that was the 3rd the advisor called that afternoon to say it been declined.

9) in 2009 Feb that was not the case it is now yes, but i had no reason to believe that I could not do that I was told I met criteria to fast track nothing else.

10) yes the following week this is part of the issue, i asked what am i supposed to do two hours before an application that why I was duped told to submit the income slightly reduced of original advance.

11) I was told stay put or go to another lender,i was dismissed when i offered to use all equity to reduce mortgage this offer did not see light of day and was only disclosed to complaints manager over month later and never to underwriter.

This will blow you mind but believe me this bank fixed its own process to try and force me off product.
just let me add if id been told on or after the 3rd Jan i will need to bring in full accounts or anything else i would have had a month to organise that but two hours before a supposed fast tract is not fair and at any rate as has been previously stated if on 3rd as it so happens they were unhappy why book any application at all on the 5th when it supposedly took place. Not only can i prove it did not but that the silly advisor has not even got the log on main frame for application right according to system the application is processed to underwriting at the same time as i was supposedly in branch but on a different day. now i don't know if banks have invented time travel .

Dave_Ham

Have dipped in and out of thread as a bit heavy on the reading front..

My overrriding view is forget the fast track or non fast track as essentially you would be trying to beat the system to your own advantage, no regulatory body is going to be up for that - even if the bank did change their fast track policy as they could see you had a great rate.

Stick to that you were declined based upon income, but they did not allow you to reduce the mortgage by your own means to an amount they would allow you to port - this is your salient point in my opinion.

potatoefeet66

Dave_Ham wrote: »

Have dipped in and out of thread as a bit heavy on the reading front..

My overrriding view is forget the fast track or non fast track as essentially you would be trying to beat the system to your own advantage, no regulatory body is going to be up for that - even if the bank did change their fast track policy as they could see you had a great rate.

Stick to that you were declined based upon income, but they did not allow you to reduce the mortgage by your own means to an amount they would allow you to port - this is your salient point in my opinion.

yes that is exactly the point. I'm not at all concerned over whether it was fast tracked or not your right and you have the basic main point however the lender will not accept or even discuss my points. and an application was processed that they cannot prove actually took place, because it was a fraudulent manipulation.

what i should have got is an offer in principle and been able to negotiate the figure i could apply for not told thats it 138k you asked for thats it we don't want any more of a reduction.

also the action of the bank prevented a simultaneous lump sum reduction of my existing mortgage of any amount which my contract allows.

Dave_Ham

potatoefeet66 wrote: »

yes that is exactly the point. I'm not at all concerned over whether it was fast tracked or not your right and you have the basic main point however the lender will not accept or even discuss my points. and an application was processed that they cannot prove actually took place, because it was a fraudulent manipulation.

what i should have got is an offer in principle and been able to negotiate the figure i could apply for not told thats it 138k you asked for thats it we don't want any more of a reduction.

also the action of the bank prevented a simultaneous lump sum reduction of my existing mortgage of any amount which my contract allows.

And this is what you need to stick to whilst not over complicating things with emotion, dates and too much detail

You may well get the advisor was giving you a non-advised service and therefore just answered your first request with a no we cannot do that sorry. If non advised then you would have had to do the thinking for them.

Good luck

potatoefeet66

A note for discussion i obviously have enough capital equity to simultaneously make a lump sum reduction upon porting a reduction of ± 85k from the outstanding balance at that time of 142k, so why would any one told they met ltv criteria with an 80pc deposit even consider the would not be allowed to realise capitol.