Lenders mis-use of credit scoring process

potatoefeet66

potatoefeet66 said:

Chris_English said:

potatoefeet66 said:

Thanks for your concern. Unfortunately, the significance of new information on the matter and that it has implications for me today determine that it is not over.

thanks again. 

New information after ten year sthat you are keeping a secret?

Give it up. You are in the wrong here, 100%, and you are doing youself no favours by hanging on to the issue.

Yes bank have kept this if you like a secret it’s taken 10 years to obtain the data which contradicts the reason for the decline to reduce an existing loan. 

100% within my rights to ask for explanation from lender. 

You’d do same. 

I think given responses in personal attacks upon me I think only secret is that this mis-use of process (ombudsman words not mine) is a little trick of returning closing perfectly normal applications they won’t make money on. 

Timbosaurus

Companies have a actual, legally binding obligation to their shareholders to do their best to make them money.

They do not need to do any tricks to decline unprofitable customers, they are perfectly in their rights (and in a broader sense, obligation) to do so.

potatoefeet66

Timbosaurus said:

Companies have a actual, legally binding obligation to their shareholders to do their best to make them money.

They do not need to do any tricks to decline unprofitable customers, they are perfectly in their rights (and in a broader sense, obligation) to do so.

Absolutely. Unprofitable in regard to product 0.84%, However, I do not believe based upon documented evidence in this case, it was the lenders underwriters problem or intention as the evidence suggest improper process by staff advisor. 

MWT

Ten years ago when you started your first thread on this topic it was already 3 years in the past, what exactly are you hoping to achieve at this point?

You wanted to port your mortgage to a new property at a time when your income did not meet the lenders criteria so it was not possible to port the mortgage.

Everything else you have posted seems to relate to either incorrect logging of time/date on internal process steps or even if accurate at worst it represents incorrect processing of your data due to missing signed authorities, which warrants an apology and a token sum of money.

You appear to interpret the errors as 'fraud' by the bank staff seeking ways to deny you the port and to get rid of you and your unprofitable mortgage to another lender.

... and yes, many people back them would perhaps have liked to be able to change a larger mortgage to a smaller mortgage by downsizing even though they didn't qualify for the smaller one, instead of being stuck with the larger loan, but that doesn't change the fact that you didn't have the income to support the smaller loan so it wasn't an option.

Frustrating for sure, but that is what was happening back then for people who self-certified on their original loan then bumped up against the tighter lending requirements to prove their income when remortgaging for a port later on...

So now, 13 years or more on, what resolution are you still trying to achieve?

ACG

potatoefeet66 said:

potatoefeet66 said:

Chris_English said:

potatoefeet66 said:

Thanks for your concern. Unfortunately, the significance of new information on the matter and that it has implications for me today determine that it is not over.

thanks again. 

New information after ten year sthat you are keeping a secret?

Give it up. You are in the wrong here, 100%, and you are doing youself no favours by hanging on to the issue.

Yes bank have kept this if you like a secret it’s taken 10 years to obtain the data which contradicts the reason for the decline to reduce an existing loan. 

100% within my rights to ask for explanation from lender. 

You’d do same. 

I think given responses in personal attacks upon me I think only secret is that this mis-use of process (ombudsman words not mine) is a little trick of returning closing perfectly normal applications they won’t make money on. 

Its funny you should say this...
You have mentioned the MAX system so I know which lender you used.

Back in the day when I used to use that lender (I actually took them off our panel as I did not like them) I remember placing a £25k mortgage with them where they paid £1,000 cashback. They completed on that and I imagine they much have lost money on that case. 

potatoefeet66

MWT said:

Ten years ago when you started your first thread on this topic it was already 3 years in the past, what exactly are you hoping to achieve at this point?

You wanted to port your mortgage to a new property at a time when your income did not meet the lenders criteria so it was not possible to port the mortgage.

Everything else you have posted seems to relate to either incorrect logging of time/date on internal process steps or even if accurate at worst it represents incorrect processing of your data due to missing signed authorities, which warrants an apology and a token sum of money.

You appear to interpret the errors as 'fraud' by the bank staff seeking ways to deny you the port and to get rid of you and your unprofitable mortgage to another lender.

... and yes, many people back them would perhaps have liked to be able to change a larger mortgage to a smaller mortgage by downsizing even though they didn't qualify for the smaller one, instead of being stuck with the larger loan, but that doesn't change the fact that you didn't have the income to support the smaller loan so it wasn't an option.

Frustrating for sure, but that is what was happening back then for people who self-certified on their original loan then bumped up against the tighter lending requirements to prove their income when remortgaging for a port later on...

So now, 13 years or more on, what resolution are you still trying to achieve?

My post is mis use of process, this has been made clear from the emergence of data regarding contradictory and inaccurate and misleading correspondence issued at time of application. Information which at time I had completely relied upon can now be proved to be misleading.

Any reductions in line with assessed income were not submitted for underwriting appraisal.... freezing me out of any further discussion. 

I’m asking lender for explanation in light of this. 

Income multiples do not make a customer a credit risk. Especial with an 80% deposit. 

An application and credit scoring and valuation fee were entered into system and closed within 4 hours. Returning case to AIP which all further offers to meet income criteria were rejected by advisor and not submitted to underwriter. Effectively freezing me out of process. 

MWT

potatoefeet66 said:

My post is mis use of process, this has been made clear from the emergence of data regarding contradictory and inaccurate and misleading correspondence issued at time of application. Information which at time I had completely relied upon can now be proved to be misleading.

Any reductions in line with assessed income were not submitted for underwriting appraisal.... freezing me out of any further discussion. 

I’m asking lender for explanation in light of this. 

Income multiples do not make a customer a credit risk. Especial with an 80% deposit. 

An application and credit scoring and valuation fee were entered into system and closed within 4 hours. Returning case to AIP which all further offers to meet income criteria were rejected by advisor and not submitted to underwriter. Effectively freezing me out of process.

... and with that you are right back where you started, the lender reviewed your information and decided not to offer you a new mortgage, everything does not have to go all the way to underwriting to be denied, 13 years on from there that is as much of an explanation as you are going to get.

So you had the choice to keep the mortgage you already had, or seek a new lender willing to offer you what you wanted.

You did keep the existing mortgage and that is where it ends.

The only take-away from this is that self-certified mortgages were a bad idea, and changing the lending criteria was a wise move, but caused a lot of issues for those  who had self-certified but could not prove their income adequately after the change leaving some options like porting or down-sizing closed to them.

Sorry you were in that position, but that's all it was and if you were ever going to get any other result out of this the time was over 10 years ago.

There really is nothing new or applicable for anyone to learn from your experiences, different times, different rules and different regulations now compared to 2009...

Time to move on...

 

Thrugelmir

potatoefeet66 said:

MWT said:

Ten years ago when you started your first thread on this topic it was already 3 years in the past, what exactly are you hoping to achieve at this point?

You wanted to port your mortgage to a new property at a time when your income did not meet the lenders criteria so it was not possible to port the mortgage.

Everything else you have posted seems to relate to either incorrect logging of time/date on internal process steps or even if accurate at worst it represents incorrect processing of your data due to missing signed authorities, which warrants an apology and a token sum of money.

You appear to interpret the errors as 'fraud' by the bank staff seeking ways to deny you the port and to get rid of you and your unprofitable mortgage to another lender.

... and yes, many people back them would perhaps have liked to be able to change a larger mortgage to a smaller mortgage by downsizing even though they didn't qualify for the smaller one, instead of being stuck with the larger loan, but that doesn't change the fact that you didn't have the income to support the smaller loan so it wasn't an option.

Frustrating for sure, but that is what was happening back then for people who self-certified on their original loan then bumped up against the tighter lending requirements to prove their income when remortgaging for a port later on...

So now, 13 years or more on, what resolution are you still trying to achieve?

I’m asking lender for explanation in light of this. 

Remind me who your lender was? 

potatoefeet66

MWT said:

potatoefeet66 said:

My post is mis use of process, this has been made clear from the emergence of data regarding contradictory and inaccurate and misleading correspondence issued at time of application. Information which at time I had completely relied upon can now be proved to be misleading.

Any reductions in line with assessed income were not submitted for underwriting appraisal.... freezing me out of any further discussion. 

I’m asking lender for explanation in light of this. 

Income multiples do not make a customer a credit risk. Especial with an 80% deposit. 

An application and credit scoring and valuation fee were entered into system and closed within 4 hours. Returning case to AIP which all further offers to meet income criteria were rejected by advisor and not submitted to underwriter. Effectively freezing me out of process.

... and with that you are right back where you started, the lender reviewed your information and decided not to offer you a new mortgage, everything does not have to go all the way to underwriting to be denied, 13 years on from there that is as much of an explanation as you are going to get.

So you had the choice to keep the mortgage you already had, or seek a new lender willing to offer you what you wanted.

You did keep the existing mortgage and that is where it ends.

The only take-away from this is that self-certified mortgages were a bad idea, and changing the lending criteria was a wise move, but caused a lot of issues for those  who had self-certified but could not prove their income adequately after the change leaving some options like porting or down-sizing closed to them.

Sorry you were in that position, but that's all it was and if you were ever going to get any other result out of this the time was over 10 years ago.

There really is nothing new or applicable for anyone to learn from your experiences, different times, different rules and different regulations now compared to 2009...

Time to move on...

 

Income was never assessed upon application due to LTV criteria, and no reduction in line with banks assessed income were submitted to underwriting for appraisal. 

The reason branch adviser refused to submit reductions was because she’d closed application. Frozen out of process 

new evidence shows that information issued was inaccurate and misleading which I had relied upon. 

2022 still unresolved issue. 

Tashco

OP I work for a well known bank and If your application was closed you either were too late submitting evidence or you didn’t meet their criteria. Applications are not obliged to go to underwriters they can be rejected at first instance or at any time during the process. The fact your still perusing this after 13 years is absurd. You probably won’t get an answer because the staff that looked at your application are probably not working there anymore . You’ve said you don’t know why but you’ve given multiple reasons during your conversations which leads me to believe your just looking for a specific answer that’s untrue. If you’ve reported to the ombudsman and there’s any ‘fraud’ on the banks end they would of been fined by the FCA alongside an independent investigation. We have super strict policies and rules to follow and you obviously did not meet them in some shape or form.