The absence of paperwork is a sign or symptom of negligence
in response to honest the Bank is supposed to assess affordability with a SVR +2% stress test and can evidence that....most didn't do it
THE negilgence angle is difficult particularly when the Bank plays games over the paperwork...in my case they had audacity to say that the Terms of Business letter which is supposed to set out their relstionship with me is not Personal Data !!!. They also said that their valutional panel is commercially sensitive and can't tell me anything !!! Seriously !!
1) Bank has not said its destroyed they are claiming commercial sensitvity. Bank is also required to hold certain data per consumer protection code
2) Its a regulatory requirement
3) If a documents purpose is to set out a banks working relationship with you how on earth can that not be considered personal data
A customer is entitled to ask for a copy of the personal data the business holds on them
The borrower did not give or sign this false information.
So the broker and bank conspired against the borrower to give him money he didn't want or couldn't afford?
I would say the only property the person in the building society and the person in the mortgage brokers picked out were their own properties they bought with their own bonuses and salaries they got in those heady years.Did the bank and broker also pick out the property?
Mr bea;
Looks bad for Lender and Broker , I agree.
Customer still signed for it though , he still has the major responsiblity.
It may well be he can defend himself as already posted , but it will be a hard one methinks.
The building society lent the borrower money the borrower had no means of repaying,
The building society should have checked if the borrower had a job. They should have checked his income. They should have checked to see if his assets were as the broker said they were. They should have phoned or contacted the borrowers own bank to see if they had approved him for the loan the broker said they did....or at least to get a heads up on the borrower. The brokers own bank (or any other bank ) never even offered a twentieth of the money the building society did, at any stage in the borrowers lifetime. The building society should have met the borrower, or a second person from the brokers should have met the borrower. Someone should have asked him how was the money going to be repaid. In the file from the building society its clear that they calculated the borrwer had not the ability to repay, or indeed a plan to repay, but still it slipped through the net.What checking should they have done?
That is the point: no false P60's were supplied, and no false accounts were supplied, yet the building society still lent the money. The big thick file received from the building society confirms that.Back in the day a fake P60 with whatever you wanted on it could be bought for a few hundred. A full set of fake accounts for around 1000. Presented with such documents how is a bank meant to check anything?
Not all the documents above were requested or provided. None was falsified. The salary quoted in a letter from the broker to the building society was different to documented proof above.Banks usually took a salary certificate completed by the employer, 2 recent pay slips and a P60. This was the checking, 3 items to be cross referenced to ensure they were accurate, were all of these documents provided and were all falsified?
The income box was left empty. Must have been a Friday afternoon rush job! Maybe even bank holiday weekend.Did the customer not sign a completed application form with the income details on it?
How did they not know what income was being completed for them?
You are probably right there. However, sometimes a bank is given as a reference, for example if leasing a premises. A third party may ask the bank if such and such is "good" to meet a certain commitment.As for ringing another bank asking if someone had or had not approval I doubt a bank would give out that info to a competitor not to mention the confidentiality aspect.
If that happened in this case the borrower would not have got the loan. What happened was the borrower applied to the broker, and the broker sent on incorrect information. Surely the broker and building society should meet some standards?The bottom line is that the loan applicant applies to the Bank for a loan.
Would the borrower have a case of suing the building society, as if it had done its homework properly and not rushed the mortgage through, it would not have lent the money?
The income box was left empty. Must have been a Friday afternoon rush job! Maybe even bank holiday weekend.
.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?