Actually documentation from the file show that the bank knew the borrower could not pay it back, but under pressure from the broker it slipped through the net anyway. The building society in question was not experienced in dealing with brokers, or at least this broker, and I believe the building societies relationship with this broker did not last long.The bank should have known the borrower would struggle to pay it back but still signed.
Any information on the application form was correct. However certain information was left unfilled / unanswered, and is still unfilled / unanswered on the copies of the application form. The borrower trusted the mortgage broker because that individual said they were the experts in financial matters, and the borrower knew the broker. Hardly the borrowers entire fault that he found out years later, to his surprise and shock, that the broker had supplied fraudulent information to the building society, and that the building society made no attempt whatsoever to check it?So the borrower signed a form without checking it's accuracy?
Please! There is no one that walked into a brokers in the peak of the boom and didn't know what was done on their behalf. That's right - the mortgage broker works on behalf of his client the borrower. If the borrower was unsure then he shouldnt have drawn down the funds.
The building society lent the borrower ( whom it never met ) money the borrower had no means of repaying, because the broker supplied false information to the building society.
Your evidence suggest is that the broker failed to act according to your instructions or lack of instructions,
Because the broker in this case acted fraudently and because the building society accepted all information without checking any of it, yes I think they bear some responsibility. Even with the figures the broker supplied to the building society the borrower still could not afford the mortgage, but it still slipped through the net. The german banks who lent to our banks "in the day" thought there was some regulation in this country.The broker acts as the agent of the borrower and the building society acted in good faith based on the information supplied, so do you think they are at fault???
If you have knowledge of fraudulent behaviour by employers in relation to taxation matters you should inform the revenue. I believe most employers acted and act honestly and responsibly, as do most brokers.P60 and crazy income certs which people asked their employers to doctor were 10 a penny in the boom.
Yes they were stupid/naiive/optomistic , but surely Mr Banker/Mr Broker as regulated entities bear responsibility.
From what I see , WE are all on the Hook for Billions we have put intoBanks to sort miss-lending like this.
Had ONE assistant-manager been jailed in circa2006 ,we would NOT be in recession.
Even with the figures the broker supplied to the building society the borrower still could not afford the mortgage, but it still slipped through the net.
You would need to ask the borrower that but I believe its because he was very foolish, got carried away, liked the property, trusted the broker and "sleepwalked" in to it as easily as the broker and building society approved the loan / told him he could afford it. The borrower was not very good with figures. I guess he trusted the broker and building society, who told him they were the financial experts. The building society was expert enough to calculate he could not afford the mortgage ( even with fraudulent figures and letters from the broker ) but they were not expert enough to tell him that. Some sales people can be very polished and persuasive you know, they are trained and expert at that. Surely you got sales training too?And still you won't answer why the borrower took the money when he couldn't afford it?
Is there a legal obligation on brokers to not knowingly supply fraudulent information about a buyers circumstances / write pages about the borrower which the borrow did not know about?Perhaps morally the Banks should be held accountable for these sort of actions, but unfortunately there is no legal obligation upn them to properly assess the financial circumstances of borrowers.
I didn't get that view at all.
Have seen a file which was got, and it shows that the building society knew the person borrowing the money had not the income to repay the mortgage, but it lent the money anyway. It also shows correspondence between broker and building society, which gives false and misleading information about the borrower. The borrower did not give or sign this false information. The broker also claimed the borrower had loan approval from his own bank, which was not true, and urged the building society that it should try to "win" the business.
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?