Lenders mis-use of credit scoring process

potatoefeet66

Tashco said:

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. 

valid points. 

Based on new evidence my cause of action is different yes 13 years, now mis-use of process. When your declared to fail credit scoring you cannot get any level of credit. This was not my position and not due to my failure to submit correct information but rather due to the premature  closing of a full application. 

 It is clear to obtain a correct view of my position you would need to consider the control document and underwriters comments. However by staff branch advisor setting up a pretext of an official application and credit scoring process  staff succeeded in closing thereby blocking any further discussion with underwriting. 

My point of access was branch staff who yes no longer is with bank. But all relevant data is recorded. Good ole GDPR / DPA 

So issue is due to the initial part of process being outside of rules, no commercial decision was based upon customer position. 

Thrugelmir

Thrugelmir said:

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? 

Are they still actively lending? 

potatoefeet66

Thrugelmir said:

Thrugelmir said:

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? 

Are they still actively lending? 

I’ve never mentioned which lender. 

getmore4less

you asked

Thrugelmir said:

Thrugelmir said:

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? 

Are they still actively lending? 

previously this was 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.

I’ve not posted here not for support but to inform others who may have been unfairly treated due to having a preferential product. it helps to read that no one has answered in anyway that contradicts my discussion with FCA. 

I’m not trying to force lender to disclose reasons for commercial decision or get ombudsman to do so. But rather to explain why a document they supplied is very much at odd with information on MAX system. 

thanks again. 

try 

https://www.google.com/search?q=Mortgage+MAX+system

ACG

GDPR would not have been relevant 10 years ago.

All of this post is pointless as by your own admission you are giving us half a story. 
Ultimately the lender does not need to tell you why they declined you. providing they are not declining you because of a protected characteristic they are more or less allowed to decline you for any reason. 

potatoefeet66

ACG said:

GDPR would not have been relevant 10 years ago.

All of this post is pointless as by your own admission you are giving us half a story. 
Ultimately the lender does not need to tell you why they declined you. providing they are not declining you because of a protected characteristic they are more or less allowed to decline you for any reason. 

10 years data was DPA data protection act. 

New data previously unavailable emerged 
raising concerns over information which is clearly misleading and inaccurate. 

They did tell me why declined, in a letter which is contradictory to data now available. 

Issue remains documented evidence of a mis-use of process. Returning case to AIP but blocking any further discussion with bank on increased reduction. 

potatoefeet66

Therefore it’s not so much how much lending I could have secured or not 
it’s was it fair to mis-use and mislead an existing customer. 

Thanks. 

Thrugelmir

potatoefeet66 said:

Thrugelmir said:

Thrugelmir said:

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? 

Are they still actively lending? 

I’ve never mentioned which lender. 

If the lender concerned is now defunct then your crusade is doomed to failure. 

MWT

Thrugelmir said:

If the lender concerned is now defunct then your crusade is doomed to failure. 

The lender is not defunct, and can be identified from previous comments, see link above...

The case is pointless though as any incorrect process within the lender would have had no impact on the borrowers ability to seek a mortgage elsewhere, and ultimately the lender is free to decline the borrower for any of the non-protected characteristics.

It is hard to see how any 'miscommunication' of the reason for failure would result in anything other than a token customer service gesture.

potatoefeet66

MWT said:

Thrugelmir said:

If the lender concerned is now defunct then your crusade is doomed to failure. 

The lender is not defunct, and can be identified from previous comments, see link above...

The case is pointless though as any incorrect process within the lender would have had no impact on the borrowers ability to seek a mortgage elsewhere, and ultimately the lender is free to decline the borrower for any of the non-protected characteristics.

It is hard to see how any 'miscommunication' of the reason for failure would result in anything other than a token customer service gesture.

If a lender cannot offer lending at same or better rates ( although there is no obligation on lender to increase customer wealth) then yes customer has right to seek new lending at rate suitable. 

However at this time all lenders were withdrawing products with advantages in face of interest rate falls. 

The documented evidence of mis-use of process in interest of lender not customer.