Souorce of deposit

mrginge

Landofwood wrote: »

You are missing the point. When the parents took out a loan, they would have had to provide a reason, if they had said "to give to my offspring to buy a house", the loan would have been declined, so we can assume that the loan was obtained through deception.

Like I said, this is the parents' problem.

We can assume no such thing.

Landofwood

mrginge wrote: »

We can assume no such thing.

We can and we will, thanks.

DTDfanBoy

Landofwood wrote: »

Cool, please elaborate.

Your suggestion that the OPs parents must have committed fraud is ridiculous

Thrugelmir

suited-aces wrote: »

IF it IS a gift (I'm not questioning it btw), OP's parents borrowed money to give OP a gift. Perfectly legal.

OP is using a gift to fund a deposit. Perfectly legal.

Lender may be consider that the parents obtaining the loan is a way of circumnavigating the system. That the OP and their partner will actually fund the repayments. If they become aware of the full facts.

silvercar

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Lender may be consider that the parents obtaining the loan is a way of circumnavigating the system. That the OP and their partner will actually fund the repayments. If they become aware of the full facts.

They may think that, doesn't mean it is true.

I'm sure it is possible to borrow £4k without anyone questioning in too much detail why. A lot of people have credit cards with a higher limit than that and CC companies often offer loans without questioning the purpose.

mrginge

silvercar wrote: »

They may think that, doesn't mean it is true.

I'm sure it is possible to borrow £4k without anyone questioning in too much detail why. A lot of people have credit cards with a higher limit than that and CC companies often offer loans without questioning the purpose.

Please don't shatter landofwood's fantasy.

Landofwood

mrginge wrote: »

Please don't shatter landofwood's fantasy.

My comments were in reply to the second post in this thread, where the poster asked the OP if the parents and declared the purpose of the loan.

My response was that this is irrelevant, as it's up to them.

I've certainly never found a lender that doesn't ask for the purpose as part of the application process.

Just because you don't understand, doesn't make it a fantasy.

Kynthia

I could easily borrow £4k without having to give a reason why, and it's entirely possibly that although the parents are borrowing the money they are gifting it to their child. So to say anyone is committing fraud is ridiculous. To say what circumstances could be fraud based on what information hasn't been given by the OP would be acceptable, although clarifying the unknowns first would be better.

OP do you have your own broker or have you applied directly, as your broker will know your lender best. If you have a gifted deposit then you aren't paying it back (i believe its mortgage fraud to say its a gift if you have to pay it back to your parents) and the lender will want confirmation of this. Your solicitor wants to check where your deposit has come from for money laundering purposes. Tell them it's a gift from your parents and show them the transfer. They may or may not want to see where your parents got it from and if they do you deal with it at the time.

silvercar

Tell them it's a gift from your parents and show them the transfer. They may or may not want to see where your parents got it from and if they do you deal with it at the time.

I suspect many parents would feel no obligation to tell their children where they got the money from.

mrginge

Landofwood wrote: »

I've certainly never found a lender that doesn't ask for the purpose as part of the application process.

Just because you don't understand, doesn't make it a fantasy.

Ah the old 'I've-never-seen-it-so-it-doesn't-happen' argument.

Well unfortunately, just over two years ago I personally borrowed just over 5k from a mainstream, UK-based high street lender. At no point did they ask what I wanted the money for and I did not offer the information.
Under your somewhat bizarre logic that couldn't have happened, yet lo and behold the money still ended up in my account.

How do you explain this?
Perhaps I still don't understand your complex and wide ranging reasoning.