Mortgage query

ACG

You borrowed money and refused to pay it back. Thats technically theft.

Whether you have broken the law or not is debateable, morally though your in the wrong. You havnt actually gone to court and proved you dont owe the money and even if you did, it would be on a technicality which doesnt sit well with me.

omoplata_2

Its not 65K value, the earlier poster asked for PP not MV. Value is about 90K

I need to buy it so it sounds like I will have to do a little (lawful) financial jiggery pokery.

GMS

omoplata wrote: »

Its not 65K value, the earlier poster asked for PP not MV. Value is about 90K

I need to buy it so it sounds like I will have to do a little (lawful) financial jiggery pokery.

Lending will be based on lower of the PP or OMV so 65k.

Jiggery Pokery can not be lawful if it involves infalting/amending/manipulating figures.

Why is a 90k property available for 65k?

omoplata_2

ACG wrote: »

You borrowed money and refused to pay it back. Thats technically theft.

Whether you have broken the law or not is debatable, morally though your in the wrong. You havnt actually gone to court and proved you dont owe the money and even if you did, it would be on a technicality which doesnt sit well with me.

It's not debatable at all. I broke no laws, the greedy banks broke the laws when they contravened the consumer credit act in an attempt to fool more customers to enter into lucrative contracts. I didn't pay it back because I wasn't legally obliged to.

And it is not 'technically theft' either and I don't care how it sits with you.

omoplata_2

GMS wrote: »

Lending will be based on lower of the PP or OMV so 65k.

Jiggery Pokery can not be lawful if it involves infalting/amending/manipulating figures.

Why is a 90k property available for 65k?

Who said anything about infalting/amending/manipulating figures? I didn't.

The price was agreed a few years ago. Influenced by a business deal.

Thrugelmir

omoplata wrote: »

It's not debatable at all. I broke no laws, the greedy banks broke the laws when they contravened the consumer credit act in an attempt to fool more customers to enter into lucrative contracts. I didn't pay it back because I wasn't legally obliged to.

And it is not 'technically theft' either and I don't care how it sits with you.

However the banks you defaulted on do. So hardly surprising they have no interest in advancing you further money.

Google NationalHunters. There'll be a black mark against your name there.

ACG

If you were not legally obliged to pay it back then you wouldnt have defaults.

holly_hobby

Think its already been said ..

BTL mortgage criteria ...

1. Current residential mge reqd
2. No DSS
3. No adverse (whether you believe the CCAs provided do not comply with the CCA74, rendering them legally unenforceable, does not mean you do not owe the debt, hence the defaults).
4. Mge based on the actual purchase price, not market value, which must be agreed and verified by the surveyor as approperiate for mge purposes.

So quite a number of strike outs there I'm afraid.

As a side note, Nat Hunter system is actually an anti-fraud data sharing system - however your defaults and you (if you have not been party to fraudulent financial apps) will be registered amongst the various CRAs until their 6th anniversary (experian, equifax and callcredit).

Hope this helps

Holly

Thrugelmir

holly_hobby wrote: »

As a side note, Nat Hunter system is actually an anti-fraud data sharing system

Application fraud takes many guises.

Dave_Ham

Forget the adverse for now, you have not said if you are currently a home owner or not?

That in itself would be a bigger issue.

Incidentally your attitute stinks. I hate this culture that we are in where people actually think it is ok to go down this contract route.

Imagine if your employer told you at the end of the month that you employment contract was "flawed" and that you were not getting paid and no longer had a job. Different ball game then eh!