Lenders mis-use of credit scoring process

Phantom151

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

Do you honestly think that banks are working in the interests of the customer?

MWT

potatoefeet66 said:

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. 

You can seek a new loan, and they have the right to refuse to lend to you for any non-protected reason, you do not have a right to a loan.

You were caught in the same trap as many others at the time, you borrowed a large amount on a self-certified basis and then after the rules changed you couldn't port the mortgage as you didn't qualify under the new rules and a port is not a modification of the existing mortgage, it is a new mortgage with the terms of the old one transferred to it.

Yes, you would have greatly preferred to be able to port the terms of the old mortgage along with the rate but you couldn't pass the lenders criteria for that to happen.

Your claim seems to be based on your belief that the local staff of the lender blocked your application unfairly, but even if that was the case you still have no certainty that the underwriters would have approved the loan even if the application had been sent to them, and nothing they did prevented you from seeking a loan elsewhere, it just wouldn't have been at the same rate...

potatoefeet66

MWT said:

potatoefeet66 said:

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. 

You can seek a new loan, and they have the right to refuse to lend to you for any non-protected reason, you do not have a right to a loan.

You were caught in the same trap as many others at the time, you borrowed a large amount on a self-certified basis and then after the rules changed you couldn't port the mortgage as you didn't qualify under the new rules and a port is not a modification of the existing mortgage, it is a new mortgage with the terms of the old one transferred to it.

Yes, you would have greatly preferred to be able to port the terms of the old mortgage along with the rate but you couldn't pass the lenders criteria for that to happen.

Your claim seems to be based on your belief that the local staff of the lender blocked your application unfairly, but even if that was the case you still have no certainty that the underwriters would have approved the loan even if the application had been sent to them, and nothing they did prevented you from seeking a loan elsewhere, it just wouldn't have been at the same rate...

I had no reason to believe otherwise as lender 3months earlier had agreed new terms. 

I already had lending from them. Refusing to accept a reduction to <20% LTV by failure to submit request to do so was not good practice or fair treatment of customer. 

I am awaiting lenders response on the issue. 

MWT

potatoefeet66 said:

MWT said:

potatoefeet66 said:

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. 

You can seek a new loan, and they have the right to refuse to lend to you for any non-protected reason, you do not have a right to a loan.

You were caught in the same trap as many others at the time, you borrowed a large amount on a self-certified basis and then after the rules changed you couldn't port the mortgage as you didn't qualify under the new rules and a port is not a modification of the existing mortgage, it is a new mortgage with the terms of the old one transferred to it.

Yes, you would have greatly preferred to be able to port the terms of the old mortgage along with the rate but you couldn't pass the lenders criteria for that to happen.

Your claim seems to be based on your belief that the local staff of the lender blocked your application unfairly, but even if that was the case you still have no certainty that the underwriters would have approved the loan even if the application had been sent to them, and nothing they did prevented you from seeking a loan elsewhere, it just wouldn't have been at the same rate...

I had no reason to believe otherwise as lender 3months earlier had agreed new terms. 

I already had lending from them. Refusing to accept a reduction to <20% LTV by failure to submit request to do so was not good practice or fair treatment of customer. 

I am awaiting lenders response on the issue. 

Do keep us all posted regarding the outcome...

potatoefeet66

MWT said:

Chris_English said:

potatoefeet66 said:

Thrugelmir said:

You don't meet the lenders internal criteria. That's a commercial decision. Time to move on and focus your energy on what you can control. 

Yes and as known customer with an existing mortgage if internal criteria not satisfied lender has no responsibility to proceed with an application. 

Providing inaccurate and misleading correspondence is not acceptable. 

Commercial policy rules internal criteria have to be satisfied to apply. 

What rules are you saying have not been applied?

It’s really hard to understand the essence of your complaint; could you please read your posts back over and see if you can edit them to help people understand your issue?

If you have the strength, here is the 10 year old start of all this...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4271519/mortgage-application-disclosure/p3

Short version seems to be the OP tried to change from an existing self-certified mortgage product, but failed to meet the income criteria at the time and so was denied...

Loan met LTV criteria and I was advised qualified for fast tracking.  Reductions post application, were never submitted a commercial decision was never made by underwriting.... any decision was made in hindsight and did not reflect customers full position. 

Like I said a mis-use of credit scoring process as part of formal application to make a lump sum reduction upon simultaneously porting. 

MWT

potatoefeet66 said:

Loan met LTV criteria and I was advised qualified for fast tracking.  Reductions post application, were never submitted a commercial decision was never made by underwriting.... any decision was made in hindsight and did not reflect customers full position. 

Like I said a mis-use of credit scoring process as part of formal application to make a lump sum reduction upon simultaneously porting. 

Those points were dealt with in your original thread, so little point in raising them again now.

Let's wait for the lenders response to your most recent complaint and see if that changes anything...

SuseOrm

The facts are there is absolutely zero accountability just as an example friends were moved on to the standard variable rate and they refused to take them off it because at one point we were in arrears but there were several points like years and years and years where twey were not in arrears and did they make any proactive attempt to suggest that they want to move on to a different product because that might prevent areas that have happened previously happening again,  not a blooming  chance.  

potatoefeet66

SuseOrm said:

The facts are there is absolutely zero accountability just as an example friends were moved on to the standard variable rate and they refused to take them off it because at one point we were in arrears but there were several points like years and years and years where twey were not in arrears and did they make any proactive attempt to suggest that they want to move on to a different product because that might prevent areas that have happened previously happening again,  not a blooming  chance.  

I’m sorry for your friends positions. However this situation is very different and perhaps a unique situation and set of circumstances. 

Whatever the final outcome of a application, I’m sure it would be reasonable to conclude, that such process should not be used to block or deny a customer of negotiations on any proposal, which resulted in a mutual benefit and reduced risk of lender. 

MWT

potatoefeet66 said:

Whatever the final outcome of a application, I’m sure it would be reasonable to conclude, that such process should not be used to block or deny a customer of negotiations on any proposal, which resulted in a mutual benefit and reduced risk of lender. 

It will be interesting to hear how this one eventually ends, but at its core, by the time you wanted to port the mortgage the rules had changed dramatically and there really wasn't any scope for negotiation, and even if the result would have been reduced risk for the lender they still had to be able to approve the mortgage under the new rules, it wasn't just a modification of the old self-certified mortgage.

I suspect that under the rules at that point in time they probably would not have been willing to lend you anything, which means they could not approve a new reduced level of lending to allow the port, even though it would have reduced their exposure.

You were in a similar position to many of the mortgage prisoners we see here from that time period, just not with a closed book lender fortunately.

Good luck with the complaint, I hope you get some closure soon, one way or another.

potatoefeet66

MWT said:

potatoefeet66 said:

Whatever the final outcome of a application, I’m sure it would be reasonable to conclude, that such process should not be used to block or deny a customer of negotiations on any proposal, which resulted in a mutual benefit and reduced risk of lender. 

It will be interesting to hear how this one eventually ends, but at its core, by the time you wanted to port the mortgage the rules had changed dramatically and there really wasn't any scope for negotiation, and even if the result would have been reduced risk for the lender they still had to be able to approve the mortgage under the new rules, it wasn't just a modification of the old self-certified mortgage.

I suspect that under the rules at that point in time they probably would not have been willing to lend you anything, which means they could not approve a new reduced level of lending to allow the port, even though it would have reduced their exposure.

You were in a similar position to many of the mortgage prisoners we see here from that time period, just not with a closed book lender fortunately.

Good luck with the complaint, I hope you get some closure soon, one way or another.

Thanks for comment. I will be back sorry to all those that this gets under their skin. 

However I don’t have any issue with new rules being applied. The seller knows their own commercial rules. 

My concern is that evidence suggests a mis-use of process after two pre application Assesments. I think it’s referred to as knowing your customer.

when I received the document declining lending due to failure of credit scoring. Branch advisor told me to destroy that document it was just a standard response. Of course I didn’t and 10 years later bank data confirms credit was good and normal case. 

Since case was closed 4hours after a hard credit search I was blocked from access to underwriting.... effectively the bank were also prevented from making any commercial decision. 

Like I said good or bad I will repost once I get final response. 

Cheers.