FSA regulated irresponsible lending & a ccj

dunstonh

holly_hobby wrote: »

:o:o:o:o:o:o:o

Doh D. I'm too easy ..... !!!!

H x

Don't see me complaining

holly_hobby

Cheeky ..... !!!

potatoefeet66

What criteria is applied to a rate switch of a mortgage ?..... that being a regulated FSA lender not a sub prime.

Any professional information would be great, should i start new thread on that Question.

Thrugelmir

potatoefeet66 wrote: »

What criteria is applied to a rate switch of a mortgage ?

Mortgages are not switched they are applied for.

In purchasing a new property you'll need to apply again. Your application will then be processed with the lending criteria at that time. In the past 4 years underwriting criteria has changed considerably....... i.e. far stricter.

A mortgage is the legal charge applied to a property to secure the lenders interest.

What is commonly referred to as a mortgage is little more than a loan. Which in the case of property purchase is secured.

Angry_Cat

potatoefeet66

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Mortgages are not switched they are applied for.

In purchasing a new property you'll need to apply again. Your application will then be processed with the lending criteria at that time. In the past 4 years underwriting criteria has changed considerably....... i.e. far stricter.

A mortgage is the legal charge applied to a property to secure the lenders interest.

What is commonly referred to as a mortgage is little more than a loan. Which in the case of property purchase is secured.

So the rate switch i had 22nd Sept 2008 to the .84pc lifetime treacker secured on the same property, was actually a mortgage application that i applied for under FSA regulations, that was agreed with the lender.

holly_hobby

potatoefeet66 wrote: »

So the rate switch i had 22nd Sept 2008 to the .84pc lifetime treacker secured on the same property, was actually a mortgage application that i applied for under FSA regulations, that was agreed with the lender.

Not thats a product transfer.

But thats not what your complaining about - you if i remember rightly are complaiing that when you wanted to pch a new property and port your existing mge product - you were told your income was insufficient (as you had obtained your initial mge on a self cert basis, with an inaccurate income quoted).

What the heck IS your complaint .... please in one or two, well constructed and logical sentences so that we may follow the plot and understand, please lay it out ....

Holly

potatoefeet66

holly_hobby wrote: »

Not thats a product transfer.

But thats not what your complaining about - you if i remember rightly are complaiing that when you wanted to pch a new property and port your existing mge product - you were told your income was insufficient (as you had obtained your initial mge on a self cert basis, with an inaccurate income quoted).

What the heck IS your complaint .... please in one or two, well constructed and logical sentences so that we may follow the plot and understand, please lay it out ....

Holly

Yes thats right I'm not complaining about the rate switch or product switch.

No you are wrong that i was told my income figures were inaccurate i never supplied anything inaccurate to the lender if i had they would have had me for mortgage fraud. what actually occurred is in 2009 feb the lender failed to conduct or carry out a fair assessment of a figure to port based upon assessed income that they the lender said income would support.

I really don't think any here have really got the thread of my complaint but don't want to admit that the lender is guilty of manipulating a regulated process which they cannot prove actually took place on the date they claim it was conducted.

They have committed a fraudulent act with the intent to cause loss and breached ICO and FSA rules.

Please don't think I'm ungrateful of any advice but I have the documented evidence that has been looked at now by legal experts and three local independent mortgage advisors all who in the light of the documented evidence confirm along with the FSA that fraud has been committed.

I never set out to cause any problems for any one individual for my mortgage provider...please don't worry its now all being sorted out.

Once again thank you for all your advice.

GMS

potatoefeet66 wrote: »

So the rate switch i had 22nd Sept 2008 to the .84pc lifetime treacker secured on the same property, was actually a mortgage application that i applied for under FSA regulations, that was agreed with the lender.

Was this a switch of rate or is it the revert rate of the mortgage you had applied for previously, i.e the rate which would come into play at the end of your initial period?

holly_hobby

Crikey ... I;m even more confused now ..... somehow the mge lender has committed fraud as confirmed by legal experts (do you actually have one that has agreed to act for you ? OR are these just sound bites from them ? Or a bloke down the pub with O/GCSE level law ?) AND by another 3 indpendent mge advisers, funnily that would be a direct contradiction to the several+ experienced and qualified financial and mge advisers whom have commented here, and said, there is absolutely no mis-sale, fraud, or whatever you want to call it from the information you have divulged. ie. you cite the lender has commited fraud, simply because the choose not to lend to you ?

Why/how on earth is that a fraudulent act - you need to consider what constitues a fraudulent act.... which is to say ..

"an act that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury".

To which the would need to be a motivation/gain - what motivation would a banking organisatio have to de-fraud you ?

What did your legal experts say about this - as I assume you shall take this to court if FOS don't pay nicely and agree with you.

The ICO as I say is involved in the regulation of the DPA and how orgnisations manage the personal data of subjects - they have nothing to do with financial services or the criteria of a mge lender.

Nor can the FSA or FOS force a lender to lend to an individual if they don't want to - as that is a business decision based on risk assessment either of the individual OR from actuarial data of similar cases - which have got into arrears/possession waters.

So I have absolutely no idea what you are looking or hoping for here ...... but I wish you well and will sign off on this one now.

Holly