£300 fee to be told I couldn't have mortgage

RabbitMad

Hang on here Yant1. Whose fault is it that the mortage companies have had to introduce resevation charges etc. Its the Government (Your employer) forcing evermore ridiculous legislation on them. How many times in the last 5 years have finacial service companies had to change their headed paper to say "authorise by", "Autorised and regulated by" "licences by" etc?

Anyway enough of my rant about this government, I think this is a perfectly reasonable fee and in my experience it is quite clear that this fee will be forfitted if you choose not to go ahead with the loan or they are unable to lend to you.

dunstonh

I believe that it is unfair to get paid for a service that hes not going to get so maybe if he complains it might pursuade C+G to change there policy.

On application, C&G allocate the money which has to be purchased via the money markets to get that rate. It is in effect a booking fee. All that costs money.

If it was 50-100 quid maybe youd say fair enough, consulatation and a credit check but 300 is a bit OTT and he didnt realise the risk that he would not get the product.

The information is supplied and what part of non-refundable charge is hard to understand.

unlimitedsaving

oh dear!!! I seem to have started something here.

Thanks for all the input. I think I will write a letter anyway - what have I got to lose!!! I will let you know how I get on. :beer:

[Deleted User]

RabbitMad wrote: »

Hang on here Yant1. Whose fault is it that the mortage companies have had to introduce resevation charges etc. Its the Government (Your employer) forcing evermore ridiculous legislation on them. How many times in the last 5 years have finacial service companies had to change their headed paper to say "authorise by", "Autorised and regulated by" "licences by" etc?

I dont agree with every the government do they make a lot of boo-boos PFI my biggest hate! Home packs and future boo-boos theyll make ID cards, road charging.

I just do what I can with the tools I have. I do believe that the finance industry should be heavily regulated though so as to protect the uneducated or lazy from things they dont understand or have been cajoled by a slick commission based salesman into. If their was no regulation banks would be signing peoples lives away just like satan lol.

Innys

Yant1 wrote: »

I do believe that the finance industry should be heavily regulated though so as to protect the uneducated or lazy from things they dont understand or have been cajoled by a slick commission based salesman into. If their was no regulation banks would be signing peoples lives away just like satan lol.

Hang on a minute here. You are suggesting that people who are lazy should be protected from themselves by regulation on the finance industry.

Who, may I ask, in the long run, pays for this regulation through the prices the finance industry charge? Could it be those that actually buy products from the finance industry? Therefore, according to your proposal, those that aren't lazy, such as MSEs, should subsidise those that are. Brilliant.

Two words in response to your proposal - personal responsibility.

[Deleted User]

Yes in my opinion I should subside regulation to make terms and conditions are as explicite as can be so that everyone understands them.

In this case I believe if this company wants to charge this fee then I would want regulation to say that "this fee is not refundable even if we refuse your application" to be in big bad red letters and for the advisor to have to fully explain this to the individual and get them to sign for this fact. (well if I had my way) I would make this a condition on the falling down points on all fees and charges that they are 100% explicit, rather then hidden in amongst a load of stuff that isnt as pertinant.

Without regulation financial services would add and change conditions at a whim and before you know it your now getting charged the 20th day aniversary fee and the bankers xmas party fee.

dunstonh

Who, may I ask, in the long run, pays for this regulation through the prices the finance industry charge? Could it be those that actually buy products from the finance industry?

My regulatory costs come to around £22,000 a year. Whilst not the only costs I incur, that is a sizable amount and of course it does mean that they have to be recovered in charges. As an NMA IFA already working on discounted terms, I could improve the discount a lot further without having to pay those. So, the consumer is paying for those.

Part of those costs go towards the FOS and FSA. I have never had an FOS complaint but my clients are paying for those individuals that do make them. The £400 charge that companies pay when you complain to the FOS doesn't cover all the costs and it is the genuine financial services companies with genuine clients who are paying for the frivolous and ridiculous complaints being made.

[Deleted User]

So you believe that all customers should be charged 300 quid to be credit checked on every occasion dunstonh? Thus this complaint is unwarrented, your explanation of the company booking the money doesnt make sense, as why would they book it before the credit check.

If so it would be mighty expensive to get a credit card at 300 quid a pop. Last time i checked the banks were actually giving away money to give people these evil bits of plastic.

Innys

Yant1 wrote: »

Yes in my opinion I should subside regulation to make terms and conditions are as explicite as can be so that everyone understands them.

Each to his own. If you are prepared to subsidise those who are too lazy to get off their backsides and take some responsibility for their own actions, that's your choice. However, I suspect you may be in a very small minority.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think financial service providers are angels either, not by a long way. But the public should not, in my view, get away with blaming companies for their own shortcomings.

[Deleted User]

I would rather my money subsidise regulation that protects everyone over the amount of frivilous subprime and over-lending that they have been doing which then gets written off as bad debts and affects us all in more then one way. Not only does this get lumped on the prime market, but for all the subprimes spending willy-nilly on the highstreet raising retail prices, raising inflation and getting mortgages they shouldnt be allowed raising house prices. This affects the RPI linked rate on my 15K student loan, my mortgage rate and the prices I pay in shops while my wage isnt rising at the same rate, destroying the value of my work. Not to mention the subsidising 3-4million unemployed that should be doing something, even if its just paining over graffiti, helping out in old folks homes, cleaning the streets and building houses for the homeless.