Should i complain?

holly_hobby

To provide information is to advise .... hence the provider is an Adviser.

Of which the receipient, recieves the information as advice .... (notwithstanding the anomlie to this, of the phrase "my advice to you")

But what a silly argument to be caught up in ....

Can I also say, that Betmutch is a respected, well liked and qualified adviser here on the boards .... personal attacks aren't nice, welcomed or warranted (and do little to help the OP or other readers looking for guidance).

Back to the plot ....

It is rather baffling that it is has been rejected at full app stage with Halifax and then appears to sail through (with full disclosure and no amended data) with your broker (if he didn't speak directly to the UWs for a pre-submission agreement).

I say this as Halifax credit score so don't individually UW (or have much mandate over MIG levels at any rate) - and this does sit a but uneasy with me .... as suggested obtain a copy of the mge application, if you detect anything that isn't accurate, then whether you raise this to Halifax, is a moral decision you'll have to take (and live by if you choose not to disclose the inaccurate info which later rears its head). Having said that, I would have expected Hunter to have picked up any anomolies between the 2 successive apps, so maybe its just an anomolie in Halifax's own CS matrix (the broker being an ex Halifax UW being aware of how the same data maybe keyed a different way, brings an alternative result).

If the info in your copy mge app is spot on, then I can only assume its something along the above lines, which turned a decline to an acceptance on a successive (ie little time delay between the 2) submission.

Hope this helps

Holly

kingstreet

Can I just say that if someone walked into my office and told me they'd just been declined by a Halifax branch, the last thing I would have done is submitted another Halifax application.

This may have worked out, but it could also have gone completely pear-shaped and left another footprint on the applicant's credit file.

droiderm

Which would imply the mortgage broker is either very good, or very bad

kingstreet

It suggests he takes risks with other people's situations. I hope he pointed out to the client this was a risky strategy.

holly_hobby

kingstreet wrote: »

Can I just say that if someone walked into my office and told me they'd just been declined by a Halifax branch, the last thing I would have done is submitted another Halifax application.

This may have worked out, but it could also have gone completely pear-shaped and left another footprint on the applicant's credit file.

I agree completely, given that H don't even individually underwrite, where it may be somehow argued, that a decline and then uphold on a succesive re-submission was based on 2 diff UWs views and application of mandate.

It can't even be argued that the default hasn't reared its head this time round, as it isn't recorded with the CRA the lender utilises for searches, as we have the same lender so naturally the same CRA is accessed.

How about the recent Halifax search and non-pursuance (which they will know from their own systems was a decline ? Didn't that raise an eyebrow, esp with the 2nd app being so close (in time) to the first and its decline?

I say all this, if as the OP has stated, the broker just keyed it (without any prior liaising with an UW or BDM), and it simply sailed through, right up to offer and apparently proceding to imminent completion.

Baffling !

H x

opinions4u

Halifax used to operate slightly different scoring models for introduced and direct business.

No idea if it's still the case. When I were a lad the model favoured direct business though. If it still exists, they may have move the goalposts to support "Funding For Lending".

Guess work on my part though.

Let_Us_See

holly_hobby wrote: »

Can I also say, that Betmutch is a respected, well liked and qualified adviser here on the boards .... personal attacks aren't nice, welcomed or warranted (and do little to help the OP or other readers looking for guidance).

A personal attack? I have never challenged the above assumptions, and merely commented it would be best to read posts before responding. Can anyone possibly disagree with that?
Whether qualified or not makes no difference.

holly_hobby

The point of my reference to him being a qualified adviser, is that he is giving his time, knowledge and professional experience for free - that fact that he skimmed to the most salient points didn't need a berating (and questioning of his professional manner

Let_Us_See wrote: »

Blimey. I hope you are more careful with the advise you provide to your clients

, or actually choosing to comment on to be honest.

However I'm sure it will please all those whom felt to comment, that you have confirmed your comments were neither designed to be insulting or as a personal poke to a fellow poster. As lets face it, actually helping the OP should be the object of the thread and is the spirit of the forum after all - petty squabbles and barbed comments, benefit no one and simply cause unnecessary dis-harmony ....

Anyhoo, onwards and upwards .....

Holly

Let_Us_See

I agree with your sentiments.

holly_hobby

Ah LUS ... that calls for a nice fluffy group hug ..... :grouphug:

H xx