Can a bank lose a property valuation report ?

I was looking at BB's thread on Central Bank's review of trackers and found the C.B.I. we're investigating financial institutions under the Consumer Protection Code 2006, and low and behold I discovered section 49 of the code which states a regulated entity must maintain up to date records containing at least the following

( g) copies of all original documents submitted by the consumer in support of an application for the provision of a service or product;

BINGO !
 
No, but it will add weight to his case down the High Court, especially seeing that the main complaint is fraudulent misrepresentation on behalf of the bank. The fact that the financial institution in question has breached this code along with a myriad of other statutory legislation will certainly not aid their defence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I will also advise and help him to write in a comprehensive complaint to the C.B.I. about the bank, in tandem with his legal action, seeing that the C.B.I. have awoken from their slumber.;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok so. Could you share any details of the alleged fraudulent misrepresentation with us? For the benefit of other readers, obviously.
 
Sarenco said:
Does that mean the outstanding amount of the loan is irrecoverable? Result.;)
Click to expand...
Sarenco,

Do you think he could include this in his affidavit as being breached, schedule 3(q) of the unfair terms in consumer contract regulations, which states-


( q ) excluding or hindering the consumer's right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy, particularly by requiring the consumer to take disputes exclusively to arbitration not covered by legal provisions, unduly restricting the evidence available to him or imposing on him a burden of proof which, according to the applicable law, should lie with another party to the contract.
 
An affidavit is a sworn statement of fact. You can include whatever allegations you like in a statement of claim - doesn't mean it has any chance of success.
 
Deleted post on borrower's request
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If he has 9 separate mortgages, he may not be a consumer in which case the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act would not apply.
 
He has 5 properties with top up mortgages on some. He has 5 children. The bank have dealt with him as a consumer too date.
 
Well, on the basis of those facts, I can see that the bank might have cause to complain about their employee or agent (the loan officer) but I don't see how that helps your friend.

Where was the deceit on the part of the bank that induced your friend to enter into the loan agreement?
 
DebtCert said:
If he has 9 separate mortgages, he may not be a consumer in which case the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act would not apply.
Click to expand...

Not sure where you're getting that from.

It is well established that a commercial investor is not a consumer. There is no requirement for such an investor to hold multiple properties - one could suffice.
 
Yes, there is also case law where the Millars had seven properties and where treated as consumers by the court. Precedent set.:)
 
Whether he is a consumer or not does not really matter, the fact is, a mortgage fraud on behalf of the bank occurred. The deceit occurred by the loan officer doctoring an internal document ( false instrument ) and this induced the bank and the borrower to enter contract. The loan officer is acting as body corporate for the bank, so the loan officers actions are akin to the banks actions. The borrowers entered into contract on a mortgage loan, that on the face of it that should never have been sanctioned.( if the true facts of the application had been disclosed to underwriting ). Therefore there is a cause of action available to the borrower in this instance, this is the deceit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sarenco said:
Not sure where you're getting that from.

It is well established that a commercial investor is not a consumer. There is no requirement for such an investor to hold multiple properties - one could suffice.
Click to expand...

I didn't suggest otherwise. I'm saying that to be a consumer and so qualify for the protections of the CCA then he must be acting outside his trade, business or profession. Multiple investor properties have the appearance of a business but I have no special knowledge of the circumstances involved here.
 
Sarenco,

I have read a lot of your posts and believe you have very good knowledge of the law, have you any views on the case. I know the courts are very conservative, but I believe this man has a genuine case. Should he even go to the police ?
 
Rebuttal said:
Whether he is a consumer or not does not really matter, the fact is, a mortgage fraud on behalf of the bank occurred. The deceit occurred by the loan officer doctoring an internal document ( false instrument ) and this induced the bank and the borrower to enter contract. The loan officer is acting as body corporate for the bank, so the loan officers actions are akin to the banks actions. The borrowers entered into contract on a mortgage loan, that on the face of it that should never have been sanctioned.( if the true facts of the application had been disclosed to underwriting ). Therefore there is a cause of action available to the borrower in this instance, this is the deceit.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I don't see where the loan officer, and by extension the bank, made any (mis)representation of fact to the borrower. How could a borrower rely on a representation contained within an internal bank document that was not addressed to him and how could this possibly induce a borrower to enter into a loan contract?
 
Yes each mortgage is separate, you could possibly have nine separate mortgages on one property.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top