Mortgage Rejection

Chas3333123

Richard_Webster wrote: »

It is a mortgage adviser's business to know that certain kinds of property may not be mortgageable, so they should ask about the nature of the property.

If they don't they are negligent and you have a complaint against them and they should refund the charge for the valuation.

You should lean on the advisor and insist on a refund.

Thanks you, that's exactly how I feel. I asked whether the fact that it's a flat in an old 60s 14 story high rise could be a stumbling block to getting a mortgage, and she said that she didn't think so. I think there is a case for negligence, and that I wasn't advised by her correctly prior to moving on to the next step of paying for the surveyor. She surely should have checked further regarding my concern, but seemed more than happy to pass it off, which made me believe it wouldn't be a problem.

Chas3333123

I'm of the feeling, now, that mortgage advisers don't often come across people wanting to borrow for a Right To Buy property in a high-rise block of flats. I don't think it's particularly my advisers fault that she was unaware of the pitfalls before I felt secure enough to pay for the surveyor, but WAS totally untrained/inexperienced in the area. That has to go back to the Halifax for lack of training, or maybe to her for not seeking clarification from within the company on my behalf prior to moving to that next step. I will be contacting the Halifax with my complaint to explain why the only fair outcome is for a full refund. Otherwise, they really aren't ethical.

Chas3333123

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

Don't get your hopes too high.

If, prior to instructing the valuer, you'd provided enough information to tell them it was outside their own lending criteria you'd have a case.

From memory, Halifax do lend on flats at any level, but not freehold flats. So if you've told them it was a freehold flat the application should gave stopped there. If you've told them it's an eighth floor flat and not mentioned freehold (or it isn't freehold) then it's reasonable for them to have progressed.

I still think they owe you a copy of the report. However brief.

I told her it was a 125 year leasehold, and that it was a flat on the 14th floor of a 1960s tower block. Are you saying that she should have known that this was a recipe for mortgage rejection, and should have advised me such?

Chas3333123

I understand that part of the lending criteria regards the building's construction:

Construction


Property acceptability is based on a satisfactory valuation report from the bank's appointed valuer. Non-standard construction will be assessed on individual merit. Certain types of pre-cast reinforced concrete (PRC) construction are designated defective and may not be acceptable unless repaired.


What I don't get is this:

The block I live in has just undergone a multi-million pound regeneration. I spoke with the guy that heads up these projects across the whole of the city, and he re-assured me that the concrete was bomb proof, and would last for many lifetimes. Why would the council and local government use so much of the European, national and local regeneration grants on a building that is going to fail anytime soon?

Here's how it was reported in the local press (I've edited out specifics on location, named persons, and company identities):


Internally over 300 properties across the estate have been fitted with a range of improvements including modern kitchens, bathrooms and new electrics.
Externally the high rise buildings have also had full rain-screen cladding in striking shades of graphite and orange, totally transforming the city skyline as well as new windows and balconies. The roofs of the buildings have also been replaced and energy efficient heating systems have been installed, which will slash the buildings’ carbon footprint.


The chief executive of the buildings management company said: “This investment serves as the flagship scheme for our decent homes improvement programme and we know that this project will make an enormous difference to our tenants’ quality of life and lift the appearance of the whole area, which sits on a key gateway into the city and forms part of the wider local regeneration.


I can only assume that the surveyor/valuer just based his findings on a vast generalisation, and didn't do any research whatsoever of the specifics of this building.