Barclays/Woolwich Mortgage Refused: Flat is above shop

kingstreet

Does the mortgage deed no longer commit the lender to "provide further advances," as it used to?

TBH it's a bit crap if the borrower wants to increase the equity he has in his current home.

TCF outcomes and possible "mortgage prisoner" issues?

Plimsoll123

Of course, you're right. I will find alternatives. BUT - at least anyone reading this will now hopefully not make the same expensive mistake as me - that's got to be worth something. The whole point of bringing up any issue (whether large or small) on these forums is so we can all help each other navigate potential pitfalls.

So I thank you for your advice.

PS: You don't work for Barclays do you?

ACG

I agree it is a bit crap, i would be annoyed too but coming out with things like this doesnt help anyone:

Cash buyers: exactly - the wealthy. And yes this is a trap. Lured into taking up a mortgage with Woolwich/Barclays, and now unable to own my flat outright, unless I want to end up paying thousands more.

Quote for the day "Just when you think you've got a foot on the housing ladder Barclays takes away a rung (or two)"

Or "im going to move my banking"

Its pointless, its like a 2 year old throwing their toys out.

Neither post helps the situation or has any relevance.

EDIT:

No i dont work for Barclays. Ive worked for some of their competitors though. I have also had my own falling outs with Woolwich over dodgy underwriting criteria (failing on affordability by £2 a month despite paying £50 a month in current repayments for example and nobody having any power to override the system). But i work with their criteria and come up with a solution or go elsewhere...

I fully understand your situation and im actually in agreement with you, but the attitude your posts display is very childish.

koexelek

ACG wrote: »

Jesus wept.

Woolwich/Barclays can lend to who they like when they like. They have criteria in place to protect their investors, customers and staff.

Criteria can change any time, not just on properties above a shop/shared ownership but also if you have kids, if you are on certain tax credits etc etc.

It can seem harsh in situations like this, but at the end of the day you are right. Financial Institutions are businesses designed to make money out of people.
They will move the goalposts as often as they see fit in order to do so. They do not care about people as individuals

Plimsoll123

Thanks again. But I have to disagree on that point. Moving my banking, or electricity supplier or even supermarket to someone else is a great idea. I stopped going to Tesco about two years ago because of their policies. Everyone said I was stupid/infantile and it wouldn't make a difference. But hey, guess what, my sentiments have been multiplied to reflect a growing majority today.

If you don't like something, by all means, switch - if enough people do it, it can make a difference.

You're confusing 'moaning' with 'wanting to make a difference', and actually taking a stand, and not putting up with unfair practices.

kingstreet

FWIW I haven't been to Old Trafford since 10 May 2005, as i refuse to fund the Glazer occupation.

A lot of people think I'm a crank, but it sits fine with me and a lot like me.

On the issue in question, if Woolwich did not already hold the mortgage, I wouldn't have an issue with a lender's right to refuse to lend. However, as it already holds a mortgage on a 40% share, it seems unreasonable to try to limit its exposure now at the expense of its borrower.

I know we're all remarkably compliant these days, but just occasionally something doesn't sit right.

ACG

This is one i can genuinely see from both sides.

One you have a customer stuck in the middle, the other you have a bank who do not want to increase their risk.

I am firmly sat on the fence.

I think really your only options are to stick where you are and just save up the rest and buy it outright once your there, complain to woolwich (in a grown up way) and speak to a broker and get them to find what alternatives are out there.

Plimsoll123

Thank you all for your support and opinions so far! It's definitely thought provoking and all your opinions are entirely valid. I'm taking everything on board.

kingstreet

OP, did you pay for a "disclosed valuation" for this increase?

If you did, have you got your copy? What is the valuer's comment about the property's adequacy as security?

Any idea which firm did it?

You do have other avenues to consider, but even if they are willing to accept the property in principle, the valuer's comments may blight it to a decline.

Plimsoll123

I paid for my own independent RICS valuation. This didn't raise the shops as an issue. But I think it was Barclay's own valuation which flagged up the shops. Their valuer didn't mention to me that this might be an issue on the day. She just said that she'd "'ok' everything for me today" So it was a bit of a surprise. I guess they're being extra cautious now, but realistically, how is William Hill or Superdrug 'downstairs' going to pose a risk? I think a lot of Londoners will potentially be affected by this. I think Mortgage Advisors and even Solicitors have a duty of care to ensure that they make their clients aware of this issue. I certainly wish someone had warned me about this earlier. Never-the-less. It's happened now, so I need to minimize the damage and find a way forward.