Mortgage switch declined as not with existing lender 12 months

[PebbleBeach2020]

All they need to do is be upfront with their customers. If they don't want switcher business then fine explain that to the customer and close the loop hole like EBS for example. They should have rejected my application at the outset and listed that as one of the reasons for decline... they didn't. They waited for my "appeal" and when they realized the first excuse wouldn't stand up they and rejected it on my switching history. Weeks of my time and their time have been wasted because of their inability to be upfront.

By rejecting people like myself or @Sean Og based on his switching history is akin to us having multiple loans in defaults. Eventually switchers wont be able to move mortgage ever again because no lender would touch us as customers. I can't see the Central Bank allowing that to happen when they actively encourage switching mortgages.

You and Sean og are playing the game. And more power to you both. But if u think there's not going to be consequences to this changing three times in six months or every few months etc then this is your wake up call.

Did u expect to be allowed spend the next ten years switching twenty or thirty times and pocket hundred or hundred fifty grand in the process. Come on kid.

 

[bluecabbage]

You and Sean og are playing the game. And more power to you both. But if u think there's not going to be consequences to this changing three times in six months or every few months etc then this is your wake up call.

Did u expect to be allowed spend the next ten years switching twenty or thirty times and pocket hundred or hundred fifty grand in the process. Come on kid.

Well there's rules in place to not allow switchers to receive the same cashback twice.

And once there is no cashback on the table, then it is in the banks interest to take on any mortgage seeing as interest is payable immediately on the amount owed right?

 

[imalwayshappy]

You and Sean og are playing the game. And more power to you both. But if u think there's not going to be consequences to this changing three times in six months or every few months etc then this is your wake up call.

Did u expect to be allowed spend the next ten years switching twenty or thirty times and pocket hundred or hundred fifty grand in the process. Come on kid.

This is half the problem, you are using words like "consequences" and "do you expect to be allowed" like I am doing something wrong. I'm not. I am playing by the rule book written by the banks and it is a kin to them taking the ball and going home because in their opinion I am not playing fair. They need to adjust their credit policy to deal with these type of customers and be upfront with people, until they do that they are exposed to this risk of people switching mortgages.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Did u expect to be allowed spend the next ten years switching twenty or thirty times and pocket hundred or hundred fifty grand in the process. Come on kid.

Fully agree with this.

The banks are entirely within their rights to refuse to give a mortgage to anyone, but especially someone who has not only been a serially switcher, but someone who has been with them before, got the cash back and switched again.

This could all be solved by banning cashbacks.

Everybody would have lower rates.

Brendan

 

[PebbleBeach2020]

Fully agree with this.

The banks are entirely within their rights to refuse to give a mortgage to anyone, but especially someone who has not only been a serially switcher, but someone who has been with them before, got the cash back and switched again.

This could all be solved by banning cashbacks.

Everybody would have lower rates.

Brendan

I was about to respond with Brendan's first paragraph. The bank reserve the right to refuse. Just cause u pass their criteria, they still reserve the right to refuse a loan.

 

[_OkGo_]

They need to adjust their credit policy to deal with these type of customers and be upfront with people, until they do that they are exposed to this risk of people switching mortgages

What exactly do you mean by this? You are not exactly being upfront with the bank either.

You believe you are a good candidate on paper i.e. you can demonstrate that you can meet the repayments. However your switching history flags you as a loss maker for the bank. Why would they sell you a product that they won't make money on? You've made your bed, it's your own fault that you are now on a high SVR because of the product you chose 12 months ago.

 

[imalwayshappy]

What exactly do you mean by this? You are not exactly being upfront with the bank either.

You believe you are a good candidate on paper i.e. you can demonstrate that you can meet the repayments. However your switching history flags you as a loss maker for the bank. Why would they sell you a product that they won't make money on? You've made your bed, it's your own fault that you are now on a high SVR because of the product you chose 12 months ago.

I mean why did it take 7 weeks and a 2nd decline to get to the nub of the issues. When I picked up the phone to move to this Bank they should have refused my application because I switched recently and not wasted my time going to underwriting. I disagree with your point about not being upfront. I have been and answered every question they asked in an open and transparent manor. If they don't ask the right questions it's my fault????

I am well aware that Banks can refuse an application on their merits. The way this situation was handled was fundamentally wrong and wasted everyone's time.

 

[imalwayshappy]

I was about to respond with Brendan's first paragraph. The bank reserve the right to refuse. Just cause u pass their criteria, they still reserve the right to refuse a loan.

Do you honestly believe that the Bank didn't drop the ball on this one? Going through a 7 week application process and being turned down the first time for not being with your lender for 12 months.... Waiting for a further month to be declined for a completely different reason? If you would be happy with this type of service more power to you.

 

[_OkGo_]

I mean why did it take 7 weeks and a 2nd decline to get to the nub of the issues.

Firstly it was your fault for applying too early, it's very clear with pretty much every bank that you need to be with your existing mortgage provider for at least 12 months. You may not like or agree with it but you wasted the first 3/4 weeks.

Secondly, just to be clear because you haven't said what your history is, were you rejected because of:

• 1 switch 12 months ago?
• Or multiple switches in the past few years?

 

[Coldwarrior]

Firstly it was your fault for applying too early, it's very clear with pretty much every bank that you need to be with your existing mortgage provider for at least 12 months.

I strongly disagree with this, I'm sure the intention was to just have everything ready to actually drawdown/switch as soon as possible after the 12 months were up. It makes no sense that consumers should be forced to only apply after the 12 months, likely paying higher variable rates for up to 12 weeks plus during this time. It could easily be added as a condition in the mortgage approval that proof of being with your current bank for at least 12 months is required prior to drawdown. The current policy is just anti-consumer bureaucratic nonsense.

 

[_OkGo_]

You can disagree but its still true.

Consumers need to take responsibility for their own decisions. Nobody is being forced to pay higher rates, that was a known fact when the original mortgage was drawn down. There was no confusion about what the follow on rate was.

Adding it as a condition makes no sense. It would be a catch 22. By being 'diligent' and getting your paperwork moving at month 9/10/11 of your existing mortgage, you are literally telling the new bank that you have no intention of staying with them beyond the next 12 months so they will decline your approval.

It's a consequence of chasing cashback offers, not chasing value. This situation wouldn't exist if consumers targeted the best interest rates which has long been advocated for on AAM.

 

[Coldwarrior]

It's a consequence of chasing cashback offers, not chasing value

If you switch afterwards cashback offers are the best value on the market .

This situation wouldn't exist if consumers targeted the best interest rates which has long been advocated for on AAM.

The 12 month minimum before switching applies to all mortgages, not just cash back offers. If I switch today to Avant for the best rate available and in a few months time another bank beat that rate by 0.5% (unlikely I know), why should I have to wait until after 12 months to just apply and get approval, not to draw down.

Adding it as a condition makes no sense. It would be a catch 22. By being 'diligent' and getting your paperwork moving at month 9/10/11 of your existing mortgage, you are literally telling the new bank that you have no intention of staying with them beyond the next 12 months so they will decline your approval.

Not necessarily, it should tell them that if they don't continue to have a competitive offer in the future the customer will switch, be that in 12 months or 12 years, whenever a competitor bank makes it compelling to move. If more people switched like this, be it for cash back or the best available rate, we'd have a more competitive market and likely lower overall rates. The central bank is constantly telling everyone they should switch mortgage to save money, now banks are saying if you do that too much they won't take you on as a customer?

I have no problem with a bank refusing to give a cash back offer to someone who got it from them before etc, but if they meet all the normal criteria they should offer mortgage approval excluding the cash back.

 

[Coldwarrior]

Duplicate post - deleted

 

[talbot]

Is the "12 months with current lender" a recent requirement by banks? I'm not clear how SeanOg managed to avoid this previously.

 

[Gordon Gekko]

As a shareholder in the banks, which we all are via the State’s holdings, I’m delighted to see them doing this.

What do people want? A potential customer comes along who has been a serial switcher, and your bank is paying cashback. Of course that customer should be rejected!

 

[SparkRite]

The banks are entirely within their rights to refuse to give a mortgage to anyone, but especially someone who has not only been a serially switcher, but someone who has been with them before, got the cash back and switched again.

This could all be solved by banning cashbacks.

Everybody would have lower rates.

Brendan

Just wondering how you reconcile the above with this:-

Key Post - How to get cash back 4 times in 6 months

The following lenders give cash back on new mortgages Bank of Ireland 2% EBS 2% ptsb 2% KBC €3,000 AIB €2,000 Ulster Bank €1,500 When you are applying for a new mortgage or when you are applying to switch, I recommend that you get approval from three or four lenders at the same time. These...

askaboutmoney.com

Post #5, most people, and surely you, should know there is no such thing as free money.
I was going to comment at the time, but decided not to, as some of my posts were deleted, I assume because they spelt out
exactly what was been advised and were viewed as not being in 'the spirit' of the thread.

This is half the problem, you are using words like "consequences" and "do you expect to be allowed" like I am doing something wrong. I'm not. I am playing by the rule book written by the banks and it is a kin to them taking the ball and going home because in their opinion I am not playing fair.

But you're not playing fair, are you? And you know it. (that is if you were one of the Sean Og followers)
If you were, you were certainly not acting with 'utmost good faith' which is a pre-requisite with practically all contractual lending agencies.
The multiple switches done using a letter of approval based on a situation that no longer exists is at the very best 'sharp practice'.
It was subterfuge, plain and simple, and employed a level of duplicity, it was based of non-disclosures and undertakings that were never actioned or indeed ever intended to be actioned.

It really makes me laugh when these 'serial switchers' then use terms like 'I am playing by the rules', I'm doing nothing wrong' etc. You know you're not 'playing fair' because if you were there would be no need all the 'smoke and mirrors' utilised to obtain up to 4 switches in 6 months.

 

[SparkRite]

Is the "12 months with current lender" a recent requirement by banks? I'm not clear how SeanOg managed to avoid this previously.

Did you not read this (somewhat edited) thread ? :-

Key Post - I switched 4 times in 6 months

Good luck with that. Just got my latest €6000 yesterday from EBS and looking back at my bank statements i got €6000 from PTSB on 02/07/18, then €6000 from BOI on 20/08/18 and then €6000 from EBS on 30/01/19. As you can see i jump straight away from PTSB to BOI but EBS were extremely slow . The...

www.askaboutmoney.com

A quick short synopsis from the maestro himself (Post#4 from the above thread) :-

"You go into PTSB and say you want to switch, they look at everything and see you are with AIB for 3 years and everything is ok, they say no problem and start the process. The nest day you walk into BOI and say to them "i want to switch from AIB", they look at everything and say "yes", the next day you walk into EBS and say "i want to switch to you from AIB for the cash back offer and lower rate", they look at your accounts etc and say "yes" no bother lets switch. You get full mortgage approval from the 3 lenders which is valid for 6 months, and then draw down each mortgage as you close the previous one. "

So basically the only institution who have full and relevant information, at the time of drawdown is the first one.
By non disclosing these facts and acting fast, before your LOO's (Letter of Offer) expire you can fool the subsequent lenders into thinking
that nothing has changed since they issued their LOO.

In my opinion it is outrageous behaviour and is one that we all end up paying for.
In essence, anybody who acted on the advice given here on AAM, ( which I previously expressed my surprise, that it was even being allowed, never mind actually condoned ) has and is taking money out of my and every other bank customer's pocket !

 

[eisfspike]

To be fair this conversation has gone off piste it seems. The OP's initial issues was around the Bank's not being upfront with the customer and being led on it seems. When the OP picked up the phone to the Bank they should have asked he or she the question and declined them then and there as opposed to doing credit checks etc. Perhaps they should have stated we are happy to underwrite you but you are not getting cashback? This thread is or has turned into a witch hunt IMO again switchers and there are a lot of valid points on both sides of the argument.

I am curious, if there were no cashback offers available would there be an issue with the banks if people switched on an annual basis for lower interest rates?

 

[talbot]

Are there any of the lenders who are more flexible on the 12 months requirement? More interested in getting a better rate than the cashback.

 

[PebbleBeach2020]

To be fair this conversation has gone off piste it seems. The OP's initial issues was around the Bank's not being upfront with the customer and being led on it seems. When the OP picked up the phone to the Bank they should have asked he or she the question and declined them then and there as opposed to doing credit checks etc. Perhaps they should have stated we are happy to underwrite you but you are not getting cashback? This thread is or has turned into a witch hunt IMO again switchers and there are a lot of valid points on both sides of the argument.

It works both ways. The bank have given approval in principle based on a set of circumstances or details given by the borrower for a loan. The bank has approved this switch or loan based on this information.

The applicant has then gone and switched to bank X and subsequently to bank z before coming back to switch to this bank. The material facts are not being provided to the bank and implies that the applicant knows or is aware that what they are doing is inherently wrong and while I wouldn't call it fraud, I would call it deceiving behaviour.

It the applicant disputes this then why not tell the bank he has switched twice in the previous three or four months since he got the approval in principle from them?!

If this was insurance, the policy would be null and void based on the behaviour of the applicant in question. He has not disclosed full information to the provider and thus hasbreached the terms of the transaction.

Why doesn't the applicant switch for 12 months to bank A and fix for 1 year. Then move for another cashback if that's his flavour thereafter and fix for another 1 year.

For the applicant to come on here saying that the bank should be pulled for wasting his time is bonkers. Are the banks meant to legislate and try to cover all eventualities for such 'behaviour' as his?

By all means, roll the dice and see if u can get 4 or 5 switches done in 6 months. If that's your flavour, good luck. But don't cry foul if the bank have wasted a fraction of your time compared to the amount of their time and money you have wasted.

Btw, I don't work for a bank and have availed of a cashback before where I took out a multi-year fixed mortgage. If cashback is there again when it's financially advantageous for me to break the fixed contract, pay penalty etc, then yes I will do so. Equally, I may wait til the fixed period ends and then determine which is the better option for me to take, cashback or lowest rate.

To believe switching three, four or five times in six months isn't going to have consequences with banks over the next 30+ years of your life if you are looking for a loan, remortgage, etc is a tad naive wouldn't you say?! One search and any bank will have the full SP on you and your past behaviour and will treat you in the same manner that you have treated them. You may find yourself a not very appealing customer to take on. And rightly so