FSA regulated irresponsible lending & a ccj

potatoefeet66

It goes without saying that we live and work in a very different place, it changing on a daily basis. This thread comes with a mental health warning, if you've read any of my others don't bother with this one.

Rules are rules as has been repeatedly drummed into me, however in most cases there are and in many instances always alternative options which make more sense both for a customer and a lender.

Let me take you back to 2005 around May. I had at that time accepted an offer on the sale of my home 197K a modest victorian terraced my existing mortgage was around 58K.

I went to my lender for a further advance upon porting of my existing loan, the advance was for extra 92k giving me a mortgage of 150k on a purchase of 229k leaving capital of around 45k± to refurb purchased property.

Application was a self cert. The lenders underwriter contacted branch seller as their search had revealed a current existing ccj, yes in 2005 i had a ccj to the value of 3K, I will explain later as to why I had ccj. The lender was willing to make the advance as long as the default was paid.

The ccj was paid direct back to the originator of the loan, they explained that even though it was repaid it would register on credit file for six years.

The 150k mortgage was approved and the house purchase went through in october 2005.
I did not spend the next three half years complaining that the lender had irresponsibly lent me 150k and got me into debt,by approving lending out side of their own criteria and in breach of fsa rules.

So i am living proof that you can get a mortgage with a ccj but then cannot reduce your mortgage from the profit and equity you make, when you have a 0.84pc product in your favour.

Its a mad mad world.

ILW

No idea what you are complaining about.

Angry_Cat

How do you know it was outside their lending criteria, have you read it ?

Might come as a disappointment but a number of lenders in 2005 (including high street) would lend to someone with a satisfied CCJ (dependent upon amount)

What FSA rules have been broken ?

You say you went to the lender, thus you applied for the loan, what about your own responsibility for applying for such a loan, you wanted it and they gave it to you...

It was a self cert...

GMS

OP funny how you didnt mention the CCJ in your previous thread where it was rightly pointed out that your income was not sufficient.

Now whe have a CCJ on your credit file which would have muddied the waters further.

Not sure what your complaint is this time. You continually mentioned rising equity in your last thread which the lender contributed towards. If they had declined you due to the CCJ then there would have been hell to pay and you would want to sue for the lost potential equity etc.

So we have a CCJ, self cert income and a self contained annexe. Not great for a lender.

What exactly do you want to achieve or are you just seeking to wind people up?

If you genuinely believe you have been wronged by the bank then they need to put you back in the position you were prior to their 'error'. Would you be happy to hand back the equity and start again?

Dave_Ham

WAHEY !!!!!!

Here we go, this is priceless.

Having exhausted the current gripe, you are moaning they broke protocol to give you the original mortgage at which you are now on 0.8 % rate - genuis..

Incidentally, I have moved my odds in and Santander is now the bookies favourite for this case after heavy inflow of bets...

Dave_Ham

GMS wrote: »

OP funny how you didnt mention the CCJ in your previous thread where it was rightly pointed out that your income was not sufficient.

Now whe have a CCJ on your credit file which would have muddied the waters further.

Not sure what your complaint is this time. You continually mentioned rising equity in your last thread which the lender contributed towards. If they had declined you due to the CCJ then there would have been hell to pay and you would want to sue for the lost potential equity etc.

So we have a CCJ, self cert income and a self contained annexe. Not great for a lender.

What exactly do you want to achieve or are you just seeking to wind people up?

If you genuinely believe you have been wronged by the bank then they need to put you back in the position you were prior to their 'error'. Would you be happy to hand back the equity and start again?

GMS - they are now saying that they had a CCJ when was given the mortgage originally (would have been off file when the last saga started)

AND, get this that they are moaning that they should not have been given the mortgage in the first place - first time round this is..

Genius

potatoefeet66

GMS wrote: »

OP funny how you didnt mention the CCJ in your previous thread where it was rightly pointed out that your income was not sufficient.

Now whe have a CCJ on your credit file which would have muddied the waters further.

Not sure what your complaint is this time. You continually mentioned rising equity in your last thread which the lender contributed towards. If they had declined you due to the CCJ then there would have been hell to pay and you would want to sue for the lost potential equity etc.

So we have a CCJ, self cert income and a self contained annexe. Not great for a lender.

What exactly do you want to achieve or are you just seeking to wind people up?

If you genuinely believe you have been wronged by the bank then they need to put you back in the position you were prior to their 'error'. Would you be happy to hand back the equity and start again?

Well your the professionals on these matters.The reason it was accepted to be repaid by lender same company who advanced the mortgage was due to fact that they admitted it was due to their negligence, maybe i should have complained that it was registered on my file at all.......and it was three years after that i again applied to reduce my mortgage.

obviously its not as bad to have a ccj three years ago or new one than it is to be earning a lower amount and then lender refuse to discuss a figure allowing lending at level in line with your assessed income.

FSA rules you should know. wound up on the first page... jog on.

_Andy_

Can we all agree this not to post anything further? Admittedly the last one turned out quite amusing but this is just tedious. Just leave it.

GMS

Dave_Ham wrote: »

GMS - they are now saying that they had a CCJ when was given the mortgage originally (would have been off file when the last saga started)

AND, get this that they are moaning that they should not have been given the mortgage in the first place - first time round this is..

Genius

Last saga has been ongoing for several years so every chance the CCJ was still on file.

Either way this is going to be a long thread!

mrginge

There is still no 'e' in potato

potatoefeet66

So In 2009 specifically on the 3rd of Jan one month prior to the application to port an make a lumpsum reduction of my mortgage balance, what your actually saying is that when the underwriter and the branch advisor conducted a soft search, finding out that i did not meet criteria due to a 5 year old ccj they had no write to continue with any application in keeping with fsa rules.......

I don't think most of you have clue about the business your practicing in..... good job your not surgeons or summin important hey.