Mortgage different to what I signed.

IAmWales

Davidtechman wrote: »

Clearly, you have not read this whole thread.

I said I'm in a position to pay my mortgage off!

regardless that I never kept checking my annual statement adds no value, except telling me off for not noticing sooner.


So basically its ok for the bank to treat it as a complete different mortgage offer, and because I discovered now, all the money I paid based on part and part.... which was a signed agreement, now all that money is lost, because bank treated it as a completely different mortgage offer, that I did not sign.

Is that what you're saying?

and that the contract means nothing?

I have read the whole thread, I commented earlier offering a possible explanation for why it was originally part and part, which you've overlooked in favour of focusing on your non argument. I assumed your statement that you could pay off the mortgage was based on your thinking that you had paid off some of the capital.

Did you originally add the mortgage fee to your mortgage?

What money is lost? Nothing you have told us indicates you have paid more than you agreed to. You are aware that the repayment element could have been a very small amount?

Davidtechman

Apologies, I appreciate the help, but the whole thing seems odd.

without saying exact amount, here is an example

There was no fees, no solicitor fees, no fees when taking it out.

I borrowed for example 210k
And in the mortgage offer is says
130k was to have interest only and remaining 80k was repayment.

but as it stands today, I have to pay back 210k, nothing has gone down. Surely this should be considerably less.

as mentioned earlier, the old annual statements, use to only show what you paid, and the total that year, and didn't include any information of what was remaining

Thrugelmir

Davidtechman wrote: »

as mentioned earlier, the old annual statements, use to only show what you paid, and the total that year, and didn't include any information of what was remaining

I'd be very surprised if that was the case. At the very least to be a statement. It would also show both the brought forward and carried forward figures. Otherwise it would be valueless to the end user.

sevenhills

Davidtechman wrote: »

There was an endowment, it was separate to the mortgage offer and separate to the bank, years prior to the mortgage.

Perhaps you are getting your dates mixed up?

Davidtechman

The endowment was 7 years prior, assigned to another mortgage, a company that went bust, so we remortgaged and carried on with the original endowment, but when remortgaging the bank didn't want to know about the endowment or assign/reassign it to the new mortgage. So, no I haven't got my dates mixed up.

but the re-mortgage as part and part, and years into it another bank took over the bank it was with

minimike2

I say clearly it is interest only, because you still owe your original capital. Therefore it is interest only, not part and part.

Land registry doesn't state what sort of mortgage you have. What is the "land registry" document you keep referring to?

Again, what year did you take out this mortgage? This will help establish the paperwork you will have received when it was taken out so you can look back at some of the original documents which will state the repayment method. In particular, you are looking for your "mortgage offer". Do you have this?

Also you haven't "lost" any of your money paid, as you claim. It has been paying the interest. You do not appear very knowledgeable about how mortgages work / what you had and it would be helpful to take a step back and start with the above questions and getting your original mortgage offer in front of you, so that we can establish the facts and try to help you.

getmore4less

How much was each part at the start?

xyz123

Davidtechman wrote: »

Apologies, I appreciate the help, but the whole thing seems odd.

without saying exact amount, here is an example

There was no fees, no solicitor fees, no fees when taking it out.

I borrowed for example 210k
And in the mortgage offer is says
130k was to have interest only and remaining 80k was repayment.

but as it stands today, I have to pay back 210k, nothing has gone down. Surely this should be considerably less.

as mentioned earlier, the old annual statements, use to only show what you paid, and the total that year, and didn't include any information of what was remaining

Night be better if you use actual figures. In example above, u borrow 210k but you have to repay much more considering interest...

Richey_

Did you ever product switch during the life of the mortgage?

I change my product every time the fix is up, just wondering if you did the same at some point and agreed to new terms and conditions ?

getmore4less

Davidtechman wrote: »

Apologies, I appreciate the help, but the whole thing seems odd.

without saying exact amount, here is an example

There was no fees, no solicitor fees, no fees when taking it out.

I borrowed for example 210k
And in the mortgage offer is says
130k was to have interest only and remaining 80k was repayment.

but as it stands today, I have to pay back 210k, nothing has gone down. Surely this should be considerably less.

as mentioned earlier, the old annual statements, use to only show what you paid, and the total that year, and didn't include any information of what was remaining

That offer would have also had payment and rate information, were you not surprised once you had drawn the money the payment was much lower?

Use real numbers and people can work out what you should have been paying.
Amount borrowed, rates, term, payment.

All the details from a statement may help.

You already told us this is Woolwich/Barclays.