Aldermore Mortgages: unfair practices

walesdave

Applied for mortgage in principle through broker; explained very clearly to Business Development Manager about self-employment status, time trading, available accounts etc.
In principle was approved with no issues.
Was informed all was ok and employment status was within their lending criteria.
Made full application and passed all affordability checks, LTV criteria etc. etc.
Full application was OK'd by underwriters but then refused by Risk Manager who decided he wanted another years accounts or he'd lower the offered LTV from 95% to 85%.
This was challenged by my broker and by Aldermores' own underwriter but the Risk Manager would not honour what had been promised all through the weeks of the application process.
Making a Financial Ombudsman Service complaint about 'unfair treatment' of customer by clearly stating one self-employment criteria all through application until final minute when criteria was changed with no reason or warning.
Read on other review sites that Aldermore has a reputation of issuing In Principle decisions and then reneging on them - guess I'm just another victim who's lost a house sale and purchase due to shoddy practices by this lender.

Conrad

I don't think your complaint will succeed. The whole point of underwriting is that over time the full and nuanced details of a case are revealed, a bit like how a painting comes together only when every stroke is complete, although you may have a rough idea of how it may turn out early on.

There would be no point to underwriting if someone could just take an up front punt and give a confirmed decision.

Applicants do not understand lending risk in the way Underwriters do so often complain the judgment on thier case is unfair.

Your Broker is a dummy, he should have told you a 95% case with 1 years accounts was always a punt.

Good luck, and think a bit more latterly if you want a mortgage

lovinituk

Why the random green highlighting of some words?!

walesdave wrote: »

Applied for mortgage in principle through broker; explained very clearly to Business Development Manager about self-employment status, time trading, available accounts etc.
In principle was approved with no issues.
Was informed all was ok and employment status was within their lending criteria.
Made full application and passed all affordability checks, LTV criteria etc. etc.
Full application was OK'd by underwriters but then refused by Risk Manager who decided he wanted another years accounts or he'd lower the offered LTV from 95% to 85%.
This was challenged by my broker and by Aldermores' own underwriter but the Risk Manager would not honour what had been promised all through the weeks of the application process.
Making a Financial Ombudsman Service complaint about 'unfair treatment' of customer by clearly stating one self-employment criteria all through application until final minute when criteria was changed with no reason or warning.
Read on other review sites that Aldermore has a reputation of issuing In Principle decisions and then reneging on them - guess I'm just another victim who's lost a house sale and purchase due to shoddy practices by this lender.

ACG

Mortgage in principle. It is subject to their checks.

That being said, I have had an issue with Aldermore in the past where a case passed all of their published criteria but was declined due to unpublished criteria. At the time I had a really good relationship with Aldermore, so I pushed it to the risk team, head of risk and then asked the head of Mortgages to get involved, but he could not overturn the risk teams decision.

I do like Aldermore and that is the only case I have had declined by them in 4-5 years - at one point I was their 3rd biggest introducer in the north west (which for a 1 man band I was pretty impressed with) - so you can see I have used them a lot.

I think I would disagree with what Conrad has said, I have used aldermore at 95% with 1 years accounts a few times and I would not expect them to reduce the LTV solely on that. I can only assume there is something else causing the problem or a couple of high risk issues combined that has made them a little nervous.

walesdave

'random green highlighting' - copied and pasted text, got some formatting issues on the way.


Conrad - don't think you read my post fully. The underwriter approved the application; the 'Risk Manager' then changed the lending criteria to lower the LTV based on having one years accounts and not two.


The Aldermore underwriter then challenged this internally but the 'Risk Manager' refused to uphold what had been promised by the initial Business Development Manager and confirmed by the Underwriter.

amnblog

The Risk Manager manages risk. That is their job.


If the case never got to offer and any authorised member of the Lender's team decided the case was not for them, then that is their right.


Your broker has stood with you and attempted to argue the point and is probably a ball of frustration today, but this sometimes happens.


It will be interesting to hear what the FOS say, but I suspect it will not be that this was 'unfair practice'.