FSA regulated irresponsible lending & a ccj

mrginge

Yo carrotechops. I may be able to help. Any chance you could repost your complete story in one big post? Its getting a bit fragmented now so i think we'd all benefit from having it all written down once more in extreme detail (apart from the bits you want to miss out of course).
I'm ready to offer my highly qualified and knowledgeable opinion.

opinions4u

It's been with the FOS for a couple of years because they still haven't worked out what the hell the complaint is.

vectistim

Do you have a friend who is better at English who could summarise the issues in a way that we can follow.
If a coherent explanation of the issue(s) can be provided someone might be able to explain what happened.

Dave_Ham

Here you go - styled for ease

OP has mortgage of x value and wants to downsize to a smaller place.

Walk into bank (guessing at Santander or Halifax) and has a convo with the Mortgage Advisor (who is going to be named and shamed at some point - OP is not someone to mess with)

OP knows enough to know his declared income is not enough to afford the new loan, so makes up his income hoping for fast track

Underwriters get involved and ask for proof (which OP does not have) and therefore they decline. OP may also have declining year on year income self employed, but been a bit conservative with the truth here

OP loses new property and keeps higher mortgage on a 0.84 tracker

OP thinks the bank realised he was a mover and shaker and declined him unfairly as he should have got fast track. Somehow someone has been on the system and colluded with the underwriter to decline the case.

After 312 posts we got to this part and said no claim, maybe a bit of poor service but no one got hurt.

Nowhere else to go, so this thread started but do not get bored this is a Star Wars Prequel version

When the OP originally got this mortgage, he actually had a CCJ which was against policy apparently (Boy I bet they wish they had declined then and there)

So OP is unhappy they gave him a mortgage which is now 0.84% tracker and is having a general moan up.

Not being someone to mess with he has already called up Mr T, Captain Caveman and !!!!!! & Dom and sending the boys round..

holly_hobby

:D

By jove, I think you've got it Holmes !!!

H x

PS - I know I said I'd signed off ....

vectistim

Does that mean he is saying he should have originally been offered a Kensington 'pulse'[1] mortgage at LIBOR + 4.5% and therefore wants the bank to calculate how many thousands of pounds in compensation he owes them for being on a really cheap rate?

[1] It was either Kensington or GMAC at some exhibition I went to called one of their products a 'pulse' mortgage - the criterion for acceptance being that you had a pulse (and weren't currently bankrupt)

potatoefeet66

Dave_Ham wrote: »

Here you go - styled for ease

OP has mortgage of x value and wants to downsize to a smaller place.

Walk into bank (guessing at Santander or Halifax) and has a convo with the Mortgage Advisor (who is going to be named and shamed at some point - OP is not someone to mess with)

OP knows enough to know his declared income is not enough to afford the new loan, so makes up his income hoping for fast track

Underwriters get involved and ask for proof (which OP does not have) and therefore they decline. OP may also have declining year on year income self employed, but been a bit conservative with the truth here

OP loses new property and keeps higher mortgage on a 0.84 tracker

OP thinks the bank realised he was a mover and shaker and declined him unfairly as he should have got fast track. Somehow someone has been on the system and colluded with the underwriter to decline the case.

After 312 posts we got to this part and said no claim, maybe a bit of poor service but no one got hurt.

Nowhere else to go, so this thread started but do not get bored this is a Star Wars Prequel version

When the OP originally got this mortgage, he actually had a CCJ which was against policy apparently (Boy I bet they wish they had declined then and there)

So OP is unhappy they gave him a mortgage which is now 0.84% tracker and is having a general moan up.

Not being someone to mess with he has already called up Mr T, Captain Caveman and !!!!!! & Dom and sending the boys round..

Firstly it none of the lender you mention there small fry....

look i understand perfectly well that its is very difficult for you to understand the issues.

My income was assessed by lender and confirmed at a level to support lending of x however this was only revealed over two years later by them in may 2011.

The advisor has committed fraud with or without the underwriters knowledge I'm sorry but this is a fact, I'm not bankrupt as you'd all like to imagine.

As for name and shame no I won't be naming the individual, it will be up to lender to sort that out.

the matter is still being handled by FOS, as the bank have refused to provide there response to the issues at FOS reQuest.

Yes a law firm in Manchester.

this is far more complex issue than you all can comprehend thats become clearly obvious as soon as the petty mud throwing and comments started, not what I expect from experienced professionals.

thank you ttfn

holly_hobby

Then its unclear, IF this is a clear cut case, AND you have legal representation in Manchester, why on earth you would come onto a free forum for advice ..... considering the fact that you claim your legal experts and team have apparently already told you that there is a case. So I can only assume that you either don't believe them, or simply they and their "advice" don't exist.

The Firm can not refuse to provide a final response to your complaint, having reviewed all material evidence in the case. They either uphold or reject. If the investigation exceeds 8 weeeks, FOS can interject and make a decision on their behalf, which at a term of 3 yrs plus, would most definately have happened.

So the fact you say FOS are waiting and continue to wait, for over 3 yrs, for a final resopnse from the firm (who refuse to give one), before they will act, is also I would suggest not factual.

Its not that its too complex for us to understand, it is the fact that your postings are not coherant, structured or largely understandible in their format or content ... with varying degress of the story revealled or removed at every turn.

If I were you, leave this for your cited law firm in Manchester to deal with, after all you are paying them from the privildge (I also don't think they would be too happy if they knew you were publishing this on a free forum and seeking advice supplementary to theirs, from unconnected parties).

Hope this helps

Holly

potatoefeet66

One more point to consider is that every other independent out of the three I've spoken to, all of them from the outset have said without seeing the documented evidence they could not make any decision until they saw the information.When they saw they confirmed the facts. thats the way to do it don't you think.

Not one of you, as so called pros have even mentioned that professional fact.... until you see the facts/ evidence before you, you cannot or are unable to make any informed decision or judgement of the allegations of fraud, breach of FSA rules or ICO breaches...... after all I could be a professional forum baiter...x

holly_hobby

So, they haven't reviewed the matter and said there is a case (as you claimed earlier), you have given them a verbal version, which you claim they have gone along with.

Yes, the last statement re your status as a baiter, may well be accurate.

Holly