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.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.
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.
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.
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.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
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.
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.
I mean why did it take 7 weeks and a 2nd decline to get to the nub of the issues.
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.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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Is the "12 months with current lender" a recent requirement by banks? I'm not clear how SeanOg managed to avoid this previously.
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.
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?