Secured Loan

halifax71

First time I've been back on here for a while, I see the attitudes remain.

OP, try other forums, legal beagles and cag for starters. Good luck, I for one will be interested in the outcome.

edwards97

Tixy wrote: »

When was the loan taken out?

It sounds like a poor decision on behalf of the bank, in terms of their exposure, but you cannot simply assume their valuation was an accurate reflection of the market value of your property at that time.
In some cases it can be pretty routine for banks to significantly underestimate the value of a property or to value it at effectively a fire sale value, not a true market value.

To your original question

Thanks for your reply. Loan was taken in 2005. What the bank has done is taken away the ability for me to get out of this loan or buy another house. As I have said if this was 120% it's fair enough. That's what was agreed. I did not agree to be stuck in negative equity forever. If they had told me then it was 165% then it is my own choice to make. The valuation looked quite comprehensive to me and I have no reason based on the information they show that it was correct at the time.

Maybe people think this is fair enough. But put in my position I'm sure their stance would change

jonesMUFCforever

edwards97 wrote: »

Their valuation shows average prices for the area and down my street too. Based on the property I have. There valuation could easily be correct when I look through the info.


It just tells me the interest rate and 120% ltv. There doc shows the loan was given on my valuation although it also states their valuation at the lower value. These were internal docs. In no way was I aware of their valuation at the time.

Any valuation is for their own use only - it is really nothing to do with you.
Probably not what you wanted to hear - but true why would they lend more than 100% of value of property - who knows but they did - and presumably you asked for it.


It will be interesting to see what ombudsman thinks.

PeacefulWaters

edwards97 wrote: »

This is exactly what I have done. I just was hoping that someone else has been in a similar situation and how they got on so basically if they had a case or not. Pretty much what my first post said.

It seems that I will not get this info here as some are too interesting in belittling my query. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but at the time I had no reason to doubt what I was being told by the lender.

You know what. I belittled nothing. I asked a straight forward question about what you are hoping to achieve.

Have you even bothered to give me an answer to that?

edwards97

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

You know what. I belittled nothing. I asked a straight forward question about what you are hoping to achieve.

Have you even bothered to give me an answer to that?

I didnt say you were belittling me, it was just a general statement about some of the responses.

I am hoping to be put back in the position I would have been in had they loaned me 120% so basically i want interest on the extra back if thats is what you mean by what I want to achieve? But really as I said I wanted to know if anyone had been in a similar situation and how they got on which was my answer to your question in the first instance.

Pixie5740

It doesn't seem like anyone has been in a similar position. I know there is a thread somewhere about Northern Rock and secured loans they sold to mortgage customers. I don't know if it's worth a read as I haven't read it myself having never been a Northern Rock customer myself.

Ebe_Scrooge

edwards97 wrote: »

so basically i want interest on the extra back if thats is what you mean by what I want to achieve?

Interest on the extra what ? The sum of money you borrowed was the same, irrespective of the LTV ratio. And the amount of interest you pay will be the same - unless, as I mentioned earlier, they gave you a higher APR based on the higher LTV ratio. Is this what happened ?

edwards97

Ebe_Scrooge wrote: »

Interest on the extra what ? The sum of money you borrowed was the same, irrespective of the LTV ratio. And the amount of interest you pay will be the same - unless, as I mentioned earlier, they gave you a higher APR based on the higher LTV ratio. Is this what happened ?

The interest on the 45% extra of my LTV. I agreed to a interest rate based on 120% not 165%.

Tixy

edwards97 wrote: »

The interest on the 45% extra of my LTV. I agreed to a interest rate based on 120% not 165%.

You agreed to pay interest on the amount you borrowed.

You loan application did not say
Amount of Loan "120% of house value"
It said Amount of Loan "£70,000" (of whatever the amount was)

You applied for £X. You were loaned £X. You agreed to pay interest on £X.

edwards97

Tixy wrote: »

You agreed to pay interest on the amount you borrowed.

You loan application did not say
Amount of Loan "120% of house value"
It said Amount of Loan "£70,000" (of whatever the amount was)

You applied for £X. You were loaned £X. You agreed to pay interest on £X.

Actually this is an incorrect assumption. It said the loan amount at x interest on 120% ltv.