Mortgage Execution only trap.

potatoefeet66

Mortgage lender agreed to submit an application on behalf of customer for a reduction in his existing borrowing , however lender without customers knowledge two days later submitted application outside of the existing mortgage product LTV criteria of 60-40%. increasing loan value, not reducing it this was above 1% of figure stated and agreed in the KFI issued two days earlier.

The application was formally declined in letter stating application failed to meet lending policy and criteria. 

Fast forward to 2022. Lender admits “it can see it was happy to agree reduction in lending of 138 agreed in KFI” however application was for higher value which was neither required or asked or approved by customer. (Incidentally the customer was willing and able to further reduce lending lower than a 20% LTV but lender branch staff refused to allow any further negotiation at any time after decline letter) 

FOS claim the case is now time barred and lender refuses to correct breaches of existing product contract in failure to meet terms and conditions set out for application. 

In short if customers hold product which are in their interest this lender will use process against customer to either force to surrender product or imprison them into higher lending. 

MWT

Is this still about your failed attempt to port a 2005 self-certified mortgage or is this something different?

ACG

This makes no sense to me...

singhini

ACG said:

This makes no sense to me...

Nor me.....

potatoefeet66

I never had a failed application for the reduction I’d had agreed with lender and that figure was clearly stated in KFI. 

Lender aloud interference in a regulated process. 

MWT

The original thread back in 2012 made little sense either and dragged out over a couple of hundred posts. If this is the same issue then there is nothing to be done here, if it is a new issue then hopefully it will take fewer posts to get to the root of the problem.

potatoefeet66

MWT said:

Is this still about your failed attempt to port a 2005 self-certified mortgage or is this something different?

No it’s not same. as a SAR in 2022 show no application for agreed reduced lending upon porting and was never submitted…application was closed. 

Lender action is entirely outside of rules by FCA and the lender customer services continues to Bin correspondence this alone is not acceptable 

If this action was carried out by independent advisor you’d be at mercy of FCA 

MWT

potatoefeet66 said:

MWT said:

Is this still about your failed attempt to port a 2005 self-certified mortgage or is this something different?

No it’s not same. as a SAR in 2022 show no application for agreed reduced lending upon porting and was never submitted…application was closed. 

Lender action is entirely outside of rules by FCA and the lender customer services continues to Bin correspondence this alone is not acceptable 

If this action was carried out by independent advisor you’d be at mercy of FCA 

... but it is still about the failed attempt to port that 2005 mortgage though?

potatoefeet66

MWT said:

potatoefeet66 said:

MWT said:

Is this still about your failed attempt to port a 2005 self-certified mortgage or is this something different?

No it’s not same. as a SAR in 2022 show no application for agreed reduced lending upon porting and was never submitted…application was closed. 

Lender action is entirely outside of rules by FCA and the lender customer services continues to Bin correspondence this alone is not acceptable 

If this action was carried out by independent advisor you’d be at mercy of FCA 

... but it is still about the failed attempt to port that 2005 mortgage though?

No there was never any failed application for a reduction to existing lending upon porting for the sum agreed and stated in KFI issued to customer. 

The execution only process was interfered with and lender acknowledged this in 2022 but customer services continues to bin correspondence and Fos are allowing lender to get away with failure to meet application t&c for a reduction upon porting 

the execution only process was misused in favour of lender and not in customer interest and outside FCA rules. 

MWT

For anyone else interested, the 2022 thread has most of the salient points in it:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6335442/lenders-mis-use-of-credit-scoring-process/p1

Nothing new to add here, the only point that I think may not have been made clear back then is that you can still fail the lenders internal credit-scoring even if you have a good credit score from the credit reference agencies, the two are not the same thing.

I'm just sad that the OP is still spending so much time and energy on a totally lost cause even after all these years.

potatoefeet66

MWT said:

For anyone else interested, the 2022 thread has most of the salient points in it:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6335442/lenders-mis-use-of-credit-scoring-process/p1

Nothing new to add here, the only point that I think may not have been made clear back then is that you can still fail the lenders internal credit-scoring even if you have a good credit score from the credit reference agencies, the two are not the same thing.

I'm just sad that the OP is still spending so much time and energy on a totally lost cause even after all these years.

As stated in my thread internal policy rules ant t&c were not adhered to by lender in its interest  mcob rukes allow for lender amendment to any criteria however it  must apply to all aspects of the application or lending criteria. 

Credit scores were good and a normal porting case  as recorded on control documents 

this lender failed and hid behind data protection it is my opinion that many customers fell foul of this trap you just would have no idea application process was interfered with it is my opinion many good customers were caught trying to amend there existing mortgage and reduce lending upon porting but because they held products of little or no value to lender the process was used against them. 

This is document fact and breach of customers existing perfectly run mortgage 
An application was submitted deliberately without consent or knowledge of customer  outside of LTV 60-40% knowing it would be declined, misuse of process 

sorry to disappoint any experts but I understand this is well known loop hole to exit customers from preferential products.