Mortgage Higher Lending Fee/Charge

74zep

Hi, Did a search and could not find an answer, prior to 2007 Banks and B Soc charged a Higher Lending Fee for mortgage's over 90% even though this was to buy a policy to protect them from default ,they 1 never had to actually buy the policy, 2 it offered only protection for the Bank,B Soc and none for the customer.
In fact the customer could still be chased for the shortfall under the terms of sale. 3 the fee was added to the mortgage and therefore compounded interest was being continually added till the debt was finished, in other words the whole mortgage paid off till term end no matter who the mortgage ended up being with.
As i said these products seem to disappear and i think these are part of the mis-selling scandal, so has anyone been able to claim their's back.

Credit-Crunched

74zep wrote: »

Hi, Did a search and could not find an answer, prior to 2007 Banks and B Soc charged a Higher Lending Fee for mortgage's over 90% even though this was to buy a policy to protect them from default ,they 1 never had to actually buy the policy, 2 it offered only protection for the Bank,B Soc and none for the customer.
In fact the customer could still be chased for the shortfall under the terms of sale. 3 the fee was added to the mortgage and therefore compounded interest was being continually added till the debt was finished, in other words the whole mortgage paid off till term end no matter who the mortgage ended up being with.
As i said these products seem to disappear and i think these are part of the mis-selling scandal, so has anyone been able to claim their's back.

Part of what mis-selling scandal?

You can't just lump any financial charge under one big mis selling umbrella.

Any how, no you cant claim them back.

Goldiegirl

It wasn't mis-selling

It was a condition of your mortgage.

No mortgage guarantee policy = no mortgage

It wasn't an optional policy

magpiecottage

74zep wrote: »

i think these are part of the mis-selling scandal

The lender faced an additional risk by lending you more than it normally would. So it was willing to do you a favour but needed to insure itself against that additional risk.

Why do you think you should not pick up the cost incurred in doing you that favour?
]/quote]has anyone been able to claim their's back.[/QUOTE]No

FOS will accept that it is an exercise of a lender's legitimate commecial judgement and will dismiss a complaint about it without even considering its merits.

roonaldo

you could have avoided paying it by putting down a bigger deposit/having a smaller mortgage. they are not deemed unfair and if it were a condition of the mortgage then thats exactly what it was. the view on it is like it or lump it. you liked it.

dunstonh

As i said these products seem to disappear and i think these are part of the mis-selling scandal, so has anyone been able to claim their's back.

MIG went away as we had a property boom. There was talk of it coming back after the credit crunch and it probably would have done had property prices fell more and the outlook was more of decline than growth.

There is no mis-selling scandal with MIG. You had a choice to either pay it or put down a bigger deposit. It was a condition of the loan if you didnt have enough deposit which means it was not sold to you. It was a term of the borrowing, not a product.