Unregulated Picture Loan

XxDragonflyxX

Ok, I see. Sounds like CAB is the way forward. Thanks.

ReadingTim

What are you trying to achieve here? You suggest you may have been lent more than the company's internal criteria suggests you should have been lent, but then you say you haven't had any arrears or missed payments - I assume therefore you can afford the repayments and haven't suffered any loss as a result of borrowing this money.

Furthermore, possibly as recognition that internal guidelines may have been disregarded, interest has been frozen, allowing you to repay the amount borrowed earlier than anticipated, and an amount which is less than you originally agreed to - what more are you looking for?

I can't see what else you're after that isn't some form of attempting to avoid repayment.

~Brock~

Whilst it is probably not good practice for a lender to lend more than their security is worth (from their own risk modelling perspective) it is not illegal.

It would also be difficult for you to play the 'irresponsible lending' card on the basis that you have demonstrated that you could afford to repay it by being up to date with the payments ten years on. Not only that, but as you say it is unregulated and therefore outside of the usual places challenge/complain to/claim against.

Ten years ago (before the banking crisis) property values were rising at a pretty rapid rate. It therefore doesn't come as much surprise to hear that the valuation they did was significantly higher than the purchase price a year before. It was also normal for valuations to be done remotely, particularly for 2nd charge loans.

I agree that freezing the ongoing interest is a particularly generous offer....something that the administrators of the loan can probably afford to do if they bought the book at a discounted price so I suspect that they just want to keep the monthly payments coming in for the time being.

I honestly see little prospect in any further action by you. Providing they are willing to port the loan over to another property in the event of you moving then I don't really see you've got much to complain about.

ReadingTim

You may want to reflect on the fact that the one who is encouraging legal action is the solicitor who is probably hoping to drum up work, and will need to be paid his fees, regardless of whether you win or lose whatever action you're suggested to bring...

McKneff

ReadingTim wrote: »

What are you trying to achieve here? You suggest you may have been lent more than the company's internal criteria suggests you should have been lent, but then you say you haven't had any arrears or missed payments - I assume therefore you can afford the repayments and haven't suffered any loss as a result of borrowing this money.

Furthermore, possibly as recognition that internal guidelines may have been disregarded, interest has been frozen, allowing you to repay the amount borrowed earlier than anticipated, and an amount which is less than you originally agreed to - what more are you looking for?

I can't see what else you're after that isn't some form of attempting to avoid repayment.

I can only echo this, and my own thoughts:-


You would be thowing good hard earned money away whilst flogging a dead horse.


Sorry if that's not what you want/need to hear but it really is that simple.

molerat

XxDragonflyxX wrote: »

Ok, I see. Sounds like CAB is the way forward. Thanks.

If you are asking something other than about benefits (I doubt they have a specialist in unregulated loans) I would not bother with CAB.

XxDragonflyxX

Thanks to everyone for taking the time to reply. I wasn't looking for a specific form of action other than to ensure that the loan was legally sound.

Yes we have been paying this without issue not because it was affordable to us at the time but because shortly afterwards my husband changed his job and I have had several promotions myself. I appreciate everyone's views as ultimately that's what I was asking for.

I just find it strange that lenders can have policies in place yet bend them to suit themselves in order to sell a product.

jonesMUFCforever

XxDragonflyxX wrote: »

I just find it strange that lenders can have policies in place yet bend them to suit themselves in order to sell a product.

It was their policy - how were you penalised?
Why did you accept the loan?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

How much would they need now to finish this loan? With mortgage rates at an all time low it might be better for you to re-mortgage

Herzlos

McKneff wrote: »

You would be thowing good hard earned money away whilst flogging a dead horse.

Unless you're assuming they'll drop the outstanding amount (I doubt they will), you're already in the best possible position (0 interest). Spending money on lawyers will only make that worse.

How much do you still owe? If you have to start paying interest on it again, then you'll probably want to borrow from a better source to pay it off.

ReadingTim

XxDragonflyxX wrote: »

I just find it strange that lenders can have policies in place yet bend them to suit themselves in order to sell a product.

Then it's not a policy, it's a guideline. What's strange about that? Or what's strange about wanting to sell a product and therefore make money? It's called capitalism, and it's the economic system we live under!