Barclays no Angels

ACG

If this went to the ombudsman though where do you think they would stand?
Look at this in laymans terms, customer has applied for a mortgage and been given 3 of 4 pages of a survey none of which mention any problems.

Customer has relied on it.
You can not necessarily expect the average man in the street to know they can not rely on a basic valuation... can you?

Who is your buildings insurance with, if that was with Woolwich/Barclays I would put a claim in on that (that is a joke... not a funny one).

I can see your side and hopefully you can get it sorted. Im not entirely sure you will get the result you want but stranger things have happened.

CB18

Basically, it appears the lender to an extent screwed up internally during processing, and an underwriter either failed to notice or deemed the valuation was still acceptable for lending purposes, and offered me a mortgage.

lovinituk

ACG wrote: »

Look at this in laymans terms, customer has applied for a mortgage and been given 3 of 4 pages of a survey none of which mention any problems.

How can the OP prove that they only received 3 pages of the 4? On the balance of probabilities, why would the bank only send 3, leaving out the most important page?

CB18

I got the Ombudsman involved and he contacted Barclays but what I found out recently when I requested the SAR was that Barclays told the Ombudsman that my mortgage was from 2000 and conveniently forget to mention that I had remortgaged in 2006. The earlier date meant I was out of time for the ombudsman to investigate.

Only discovered this in 2015. The ombudsman will be getting a full update.

kingstreet

CB18 wrote: »

Basically, it appears the lender to an extent screwed up internally during processing, and an underwriter either failed to notice or deemed the valuation was still acceptable for lending purposes, and offered you a mortgage.

However, your leap of faith that somehow the lender becomes responsible to you, rather than its shareholders alone for its error is a non-sequitur.

As I said, the logical conclusion based on established contract law is the lender may sue the surveyor and you, having no contract with the surveyor will end up having to pay your mortgage as you have no recourse to the surveyor as you had no contract and you could place no reliance on the lender's mortgage report and valuation.

You still have the utility of the property at your disposal and don't need alternative accommodation, as I understand it?

You may be able to use the adverse publicity and "out of court" route but what you get won't be due to any contractual obligation, IMHO.

CB18

I have a faxed copy from the survey company and of course the pages are number,they only sent three.

lovinituk

CB18 wrote: »

I have a faxed copy from the survey company and of course the pages are number,they only sent three.

That doesn't really prove anything unless they sent you pages 1, 2 and 4 for example.

CB18

The lender and surveyor are all one Woolwich/Barclays owned the survey company (Ekins) As my survey was organised by the lender and was a Homefile you can sue the lender,if you instruct a survey above this you only have recourse against the surveyor.

I have issued a writ against Barclays.

CB18

Faxes state at the top of the pages 1/3,2/3,3/3. This is proof of only three pages.

mrginge

what have your buildings insurance company said?