should I fight this CIFAS fraud marker?
london-dog
Posts: 40 Forumite
-issue solved-
0
Comments
-
london-dog wrote: »- Reason lender knew I was letting out their property: I gave their details to the local Council as part of the local landlord licensing process they have been pioneering! The Council then contacted them as part of the process. I even supplied my mortgage account number to the local Council.
- Oversight on my part: I accept that I should have also written to the lender as part of the letting procedure, in addition to giving their details to the local Council. However this was at an extreme time of upheaval and stress while I was changing jobs and dealing with the responsibility of the new property.
You should have requested permission from the lender to let the property (and not gone ahead if they refused permission), and should have raised the potential issue with them before completing the purchase. If you had raised this at the time and presented documentary evidence regarding the job offer, evidence that you had actually given notice to your landlord etc then they would have had the option to grant permission, or alternatively withdraw their mortgage offer. You didn't give them this choice.
From their point of view you didn't act in good faith. They found out that the property was let, and had never been your residence from a third party. They will regard the CIFAS marker as correctly applied."When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson0 -
Hi
I can't comment on your chance of being successful but I still think it could be worth trying to contest the fraud marker. As you say, it sounds like some oversight on your part but your reasons seem justifiable.
You could ask the lender to use discretion and remove it, even though it may be declined for the reasons MacMickster mentions above.
James
@natdebtline
We work as money advisers for National Debtline and have specific permission from MSE to post to try to help those in debt. Read more information on National Debtline in MSE's Debt Problems: What to do and where to get help guide. If you find you're struggling with debt and need further help try our online advice tool My Money Steps0 -
Its about time these blacklists were regulated.
Surely letting out your own property is not fraud???"Love you Dave Brooker! x"
"i sent a letter headded sales of god act 1979"0 -
Of course letting out your own property is not fraud. The problem comes when someone lets out a property that someone else has a larger stake in than the (usually small) part owner does after obtaining a private residential only mortgage instead of the required business BTL mortgage.
I agree though that OP should enter a conversation with the lender asking that they remove the marker on the basis that they were a bit dim rather than devious
0 -
MacMickster wrote: »You should have requested permission from the lender to let the property (and not gone ahead if they refused permission), and should have raised the potential issue with them before completing the purchase. If you had raised this at the time and presented documentary evidence regarding the job offer, evidence that you had actually given notice to your landlord etc then they would have had the option to grant permission, or alternatively withdraw their mortgage offer. You didn't give them this choice.
From their point of view you didn't act in good faith. They found out that the property was let, and had never been your residence from a third party. They will regard the CIFAS marker as correctly applied.
Hi MacMickster - is this actually "Fraud" though? Their allegation is specifically fraud with all the accompanying legal connotations and deception required. They found out from a third party because I gave the third party their contact details.
Also how could I raise the potential issue before completing the purchase, when it wasn't at all clear I would get a new job or even where I would have to be in the week location-wise, resulting in the need to stay local still rather than move.0 -
Your need to move doesn't mean that you are now allowed to let the place, and that is the beef - not your move. This is where what you want simply doesn't meet up with what you are supposed, or allowed, to do.london-dog wrote: »Hi MacMickster - is this actually "Fraud" though? Their allegation is specifically fraud with all the accompanying legal connotations and deception required. They found out from a third party because I gave the third party their contact details.
Also how could I raise the potential issue before completing the purchase, when it wasn't at all clear I would get a job or even where I would have to be in the week location-wise, resulting in the need to stay local still rather than move.
But I have to agree that this really isn't fraud, just misguidance on your part. So best to give them a call and explain the situation and they may drop it.0 -
London-Dog says they DID get consent to let..
It is not clear to me what the CIFAS marker is for..0 -
London-Dog says they DID get consent to let..
It is not clear to me what the CIFAS marker is for..
Applying for a domestic mortgage then letting it immediately?
The tale isn't entirely clear, but it looks like they never lived in it at all. It also looks like the consent came later.
They pushed their luck and have been burned, but I still reckon the CIFAS is a very harsh response.0 -
With all due respect, to a financial institution, what you were doing DOES count as fraud.
They were/are now aware of your situation and reasons for your property needing to be let immediately (whether they believe your story to be true is a different matter entirely) however, they may well have applied this marker as soon as the third party contacted them.
To defraud is wrongful deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
The lender found out from a third party, not you, that you had/were planning to let out your house (deception). For all they know, you were never planning on informing them and potentially continuing to pay the residential mortgage rate instead of the commercial/Buy to Let interest rate. (financial gain).
May be worth a go to have the marker removed however I think they would consider this to be applied correctly.0 -
The lender found out from a third party, not you, that you had/were planning to let out your house (deception).
Fraud by failing to disclose information legally obliged to do so, has to show also "that it was done with the necessary dishonest intent", I just looked at the Fraud Act.
I should have written to them at the time but things were crazy with a new job and I didn't really want a let property to deal with and I admit I dropped the ball on this. But I disagree with you as far as your definition of deception goes, I did not intentionally deceive the bank (otherwise why give the third party all their details to contact them).0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards