mortgage denied

V

villa 1

Registered User
Messages
356
Hi all. A good friend of mine has recently applied through a broker for a mortgage of 90k with AIB.

This will clear an exisiting mortgage of 75k with PTSB and give the remaining 15k for refurnishing the property.

She has been declined the mortgage due to two alleged arrears on a loan (CAR) in 2004. Is this current policy with AIB. My friend is gutted as she is a public servant and she thought that with her current salary she would have no problem securing the mortgage.

Is there any other way of finding the finance or can she find out what exactly she done wrong 5 yrs ago (she's can't remember having any arrears.)
 
She has applied on line for this report. She can't remember these episodes of non payment. Why are they going back so far. They were giving away money up to 18 months ago.
In my opinion if Banks are going to be so picky when processing mortgage requests they have some cheek. They are partly to blame for a lot of this countries wows and now the irish taxpayer is bailing them out. Now they're not giving any money to those same taxpayers!! I'm confused!!

When she gets this report what is her recourse then?
Help greatly appreciated
 
Of course they're not gonna hand it over to someone who they claim hasn't repaid on previous loans, they would be silly to.

When she gets the credit report it will hopefully tell her where the problem lies. She needs to speak to the bank or lending crowd in question. If she talks to the bank she had the loan out with for the car they should be able to tell her what the problem is.

Institutions look partly at the credit reports to see if a person will repay the money, thats the whole idea of it.
 
Thanks Smashbox. She did pay off all the loans that she had at the time so I don't think it should be classed as a bad debt or unpaid loan. She may have missed a payment but she simply can't renember back that far.
Will a missed but subsequent paid repayment on a car loan for example mitigate against mortgage approval. This sounds extemely harsh as it is alleged as to have happened 5 yrs ago. Her banking history is impeccable.
 
We were declined a mortgage with AIB. Our credit records were perfect. They held the application up for almost two weeks. My husband issued them with accounts for 4 years and they even requested tax returns to prove the Certified Accountant wasn't lying. After all this running around, they decided to decline our application. Their reason was 'no repayment history'. When we held a mortgage for 7 years before and never missed a payment, had term loans and an excellent history.

It's disgraceful what they are doing now. My broker told me that we weren't the type of customer they were looking for at the moment. As we are looking for a top-up to make improvements to our home. We got the same from Halifax. The bank managers were very positive, but as soon as it got to the underwriters, it was just denied.
 
Hopefully the credit report will show where things are wrong, because it doesnt sound right if she has cleared the loans.
 
villa 1 said:
They are partly to blame for a lot of this countries wows and now the irish taxpayer is bailing them out. Now they're not giving any money to those same taxpayers!! I'm confused!!
Click to expand...
Do you think our economic woes will be helped by lending to people with impaired credit history? [Hint: You might want to do a bit of research on the links between toxic loans and the credit crunch before you answer].
 
been banking with aib all my life had loans that were always paid early with them never missed a payment in my life
applied for mortgage back in january with them and it took a long 3wks of running around getting stuff for the mortgage and every time we asked does everything look ok they said yes after numerious calls getting annoyed because they never returned our call was denied in the end on the basis that my b/f had invertment property even though they told us at start that this wouldnt be a problem needless to say i was shocked at the final outcome. tell your friend hang in there we got our mortgage in the end at a better rate and staff couldnt be more polite and even return our calls.
the best i thought was somehow over the years not knowing i did it i signed up for e statements with aib after the declined us the mortgage we had to organise to get 6months bank statements they wanted e2.50 per page per statement which i thought was a bit much i had to laugh down the phone to the young fella or i would of said stuff iwould of regretted.
needlees to say all my banking has now moved from this bank and they had the cheek to ask me why iwas moving.
 
villa 1 said:
She has applied on line for this report. She can't remember these episodes of non payment. Why are they going back so far. They were giving away money up to 18 months ago.
Click to expand...

The fact they were giving away money was not a good thing. Also the fact your friend is not sure if she made all her repayments on time is not a good thing. Could your friend not wait and purchase furniture as her salary comes in. Refurnishing after all is not so important is it.
 
Similar issue with aib. They approved me last year for €260,000 , approval expired in February. In March I found a nice place I could afford, 230,000, and I applied to them to renew the loan. Kept me waiting for 3 weeks before issuing me with a letter advising that I no longer meet their criteria. Broker told me that now instead of 10% deposit they want 20%. It wouldn’t make you as annoyed if they weren’t advertising on any space they can spend their bank bailout € on telling you there offering mortgages.

I would love to see some figures from AIB on how many mortgages they’ve issued each month, along with age and financial status of those receiving the loan..
 
Differant mortgage companies will accept differant applicants.

Remember to always ask your mortgage broker what companies they have access to (so you know you are getting a better chance of getting mortgage approval).
 
Agree with Hybrid.

Firstly, if I were a bank manager, I'd rather deal with first hand information and see the customer face to face to make sure everything checks out - you'd be amazed at how many things that look great on paper turn out to be not quite what they seem when you meet the people in person. Brokers can make the banks more cautious as they are getting second hand information that has been filtered by the broker to make the customer look good. Banks are very very cautious in the current climate.

Secondly, banks dont give brokers preferential rates for mortgages - they are not charities for brokers benefit. Any rate that is offered to a broker can be obtained by the customer minus the brokers commission.

Thirdly, you dont want the broker to influence your decision on the basis that their commission may be higher on certain products.

If you are financially clueless, cannot engage in simple negotiations and cannot fill out straight forward application forms, or are rich enough that you couldnt be bothered to do these things and would rather pay someone, then a broker may be for you. But if you are confident that you can do all of this, then I dont see the reason for a broker.
 
I rarely get involved in these broker v direct debate as it's horses for courses but it's a quiet day so I might as well..

If you have time to apply directly to all banks and you are confident you understand mortgages and the different products on offer then go ahead. If you also have time to shop around for your mortgage protection and buildings insurance then go ahead too. The same goes for your solicitor.

Just to give a different point of view from csirl's.

The underwriters at the banks make the decision not the bank manager so the underwriter will rarely if ever meet the client. Some bank managers were also on commission in the good old days so I am guessing that the unscrupulous ones (along with the unscrupulous brokers) put a shine on certain applications to get them approved or approved for a larger sum. This was the system and you can attach blame where you like but at the end of the day it was up to the underwriter to make a decision based on supporting documentation. It's all well and good the broker/banker saying Joe earns €100k a year and is a great man to save. If this is not supported by payslips/P60/salary certificate/accounts then it will not make any difference.

Preferential rate for mortgages. This does not happen anymore, simple as that. It used to happen and I worked for a large brokerage where the banks were happy to give us better rates for the client in order to keep our flow. Clients were grateful to us as many did not like to ask for better rates so were happy with the service we provided.

The broker commission is not a charge on the customers mortgage. The banks pay commission instead of having to pay for advertising, staff wages and other costs involved in sourcing a client. The case also arrives on the underwriters desk fully packaged and ready to be approved/declined. It is arguably cheaper for the bank to pay mortgage commission than to source mortgage clients themselves - otherwise they simply wouldn't do it.

If you are worried about the broker being swayed by commission, go to a fee based broker that refunds the commission to you. You pay them, they work for you not for the bank. Otherwise ask the broker at the outset for the level of commission he is being paid by different banks.

A good broker should save to time and take a lot of the hassle out of getting mortgage approval especially if you are borderline. If you know you have a strong case then save yourself time and march straight into AIB and look for a mortgage but be warned there are not many strong cases anymore. More than likely you will have to approach several banks, fill out several application forms and arrange several meetings before you will be approved.

On a final point I think it would be interesting to see how many people on fixed rate mortgages were sold them directly by a bank or through a broker. I would guess more were directly by a bank as most decent brokers are loath to recommend a fixed rate rate mortgage over a tracker/variable. Banks on the other hand never lose on a fixed rate mortgage.

This is not having a go at banks, I'm sure most bank managers worked in the best interest of the clients as I hope most brokers did.
 

Sorry CSirl but I find this post to be a poorly educated assumption on something you appear to know little about (Im basing it soley on this post) . .

Firstly bank managers dont decide who get mortgages, Underwriters do and they dont care (right now) much for wink wink nudge nudge "push this through" tactics.

Secondly why is the fact that brokers get the same rate as anybody, a reason why you shouldnt use a broker.? Brokers have quicker access and greater knowledge of the markets then most people, if you are not paying them for their service why not use an independent broker with no alligience to any specific bank.?And as far as comission is concerned, the banks pay the comission, it doesnt affect your costs in anyway (Im not really sure what you meant "minus the comission").

Lastly you are working off the assumption that all brokers are comission orientated at their clients expense, which is ignorant at best . I dont think I need mention much more on that . .

I dont mind people having a go at brokers when they give educated and fair assessment of the industry. There are good and bad brokers like every profession. Your reasons for not going with a broker are misplaced (if these are the only reasons you do not use one), but you are entitled to them.




A good broker:
  • Will help you put your application together
  • Will help you find the best branch to submit your application
  • Will help you throughout the application
  • Be contactable throughout your application (ie you wont be passed to differant people)
  • Be familiar with your application (therefore you dont have to explain yourself every time you need to query something)
  • Know the best banks to apply to (so you dont have to do research yourself)
  • Know the industry better then the average Joe which includes having direct access to Underwriters
If a broker is paid comission it costs the Customer nothing. So in essence you get a personal service at no extra cost.
 
NorthDrum said:
If a broker is paid comission it costs the Customer nothing. So in essence you get a personal service at no extra cost.
Click to expand...


Everything has a cost. Nothing is for free. The broker is not a disinterested party. An uncompetitive product or being bundled a very expensive mortgage protection policy is very costly for the customer.

I therefore agree with Hybrid.

Question: How many brokers recommended to me the NIB tracker product of ECB rate + 0.5 when it was available on the market in 2006/8.
Answer: none.
Why? Because brokers do not provide whole of market service, and this product was only available directly from NIB bank.

As previously pointed out brokers work on commission for the products they sell. This commission is provided by the banks and not the 'client'. They are not impartial. Unless some independent audit shows otherwise I would also tend to the view that they will push the products that give them the most income (and my own experience would tally with that). As regards other brokers in other threads pointing out that it is not in their long term interest to sell expensive/poor products I would point out that similar arguments were made by Enron when they were manipulating Californian energy market, and more recently by our banking fraternity who said that it was not in their long term interest to give out bad loans.

I previously posted link to an article in the Times about a survey on brokers who were apparently offering fixed fee whole of market services (not available in ROI) and even they did not live up to obligation to provide an impartial service.
 
Any long term user of Askaboutmoney.com will know that this broker vs direct debate has surfaced in many threads many times and never really ends. Here's my two cent worth. (For the avoidance of any doubt, I'm a broker.)

  • Most of the brokers who post here regularly seem to have realised that the most lucrative stream of income they can ever get is from a client-base who refer them business and recommend them. This is far more valuable than maximising commission from one client.
  • Most of the anti-broker fraternity appear to have had bad experiences with brokers who put their own self-interest above that of the client in some shape or form. This is unfortunate and tends to lead to a presumption that all brokers will do the same.
  • As with any profession, there are good brokers and bad brokers. I've had dreadful experiences with solicitors over the years. Some solicitors have been proven to be acting entirely fraudulently. But I don't jump to the conclusion that all solicitors will act poorly. I know many solicitors who are wonderful professionals and very reasonable on fees too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register