Rejected purely on switching frequency

time to plan said:

I imagine that there may be a code of conduct for financial service providers, which may include treating people fairly and transparently. But if it does in fact exist, it would be surprising if it has been breached.

Click to expand...

Yes, there is the consumer protection code. The first principle is to act honestly, fairly and professionally. I wouldn't see any breach in a company making a commercial decision not to lose money on a customer.

Of course, they rejected you.
This is the same as bookmakers who close the accounts of people who keep winning.
It's not allowed.
The only winner in a casino is the house, and boy have we got some casino.

I’d imagine they would accept your application if you opted for a term of 3 / 5 years minimum.

Absolutely unbelievable thread!

Notwithstanding the totally unnecessary sarcasm but the 'what do you expect' tone is in total variance with the multitude of threads that appeared here not so long ago.
These threads were actively encouraging people to become serial switchers by bending the rules utilising non disclosure among other 'tricks' purely to line their own pockets by means of cashback offers.

Some of the comments at the time were, 'It's so easy', 'Why wouldn't you do it?' and from a very prominent poster 'Can't understand why more people don't avail of this?' ???
I disagreed with it at the time, still do, on the basis that it was utilising subterfuge and duplicitous behaviour to extract as much money (which BTW all the rest of us have to fund) as possible from lending agencies and that it was certainly not in keeping with the spirit of the cashback scheme.

The saying 'As you sow so shall you reap', springs to mind.

Hi Sparkrite

I would encourage people to avail of multiple cash backs and switching. But they should make sure that they can end up with a non-cashback lender i.e. Avant, AIB or Finance Ireland.

But if a cashback lender refuses them a mortgage on the second switch, they should not be too surprised.

What surprised me is that it has taken the cash-back lenders so long to put limits on switching.

SparkRite said:

it was certainly not in keeping with the spirit of the cashback scheme.

Click to expand...

What on earth does that mean? Lenders introduced cashback to confuse and trick borrowers. If borrowers exploit the scheme, fair play to them. If lenders put up measures to stop people exploiting the schemes, that's fine too.

I encourage people to avail of cashback while it lasts. At the same time I would like to see it banned. People think that this is contradictory. It is not.

Brendan

@SparkRite

I doubt if anybody recommended dishonestly, by any deception, inducing anybody to make a loan - after all, it's an offence.

Could you post a link to one of the threads that you are referencing?

Brendan Burgess said:

What on earth does that mean? Lenders introduced cashback to confuse and trick borrowers. If borrowers exploit the scheme, fair play to them.

Click to expand...

I really don't know how much simpler I can say it, but I'll give it a go or maybe you are being purposely obtuse.

If a person has to employ one or more of the following, non-disclosure/duplicity/subterfuge all within a certain time to benefit, more than the usual/expected of any scheme, then, I think it could be perceived as not in keeping with the spirit of said scheme. But as you yourself used the word 'exploit' then I am certain you know exactly what I mean !

Sarenco said:

I doubt if anybody recommended dishonestly, by any deception, inducing anybody to make a loan - after all, it's an offence.

Click to expand...

I never used the word dishonest, however there is deception by using non-disclosure.
Basically LOO's are offered on certain conditions, those conditions change but are not disclosed when the LOO is enacted.

You are a long time poster so must be well able to search, they were very active I think about 3 years ago or so.
I suspect a few were deleted as some posts were a 'little too close to the bone', but I may be wrong.
Here's a few but there were much, much longer threads:-



NB.I haven't read the above so may not explain exactly the methods used to "exploit " (not my word) the scheme.

SparkRite said:

Basically LOO's are offered on certain conditions, those conditions change but are not disclosed when the LOO is enacted.

Click to expand...

What's a LOO?

I've read through those threads again and I don't see anybody advocating any non-disclosure or deception.

I don't mean to be rude but I've really no idea what you are talking about.

Sarenco said:

What's a LOO?

Click to expand...

Letter of Offer.

Sarenco said:

I've read through those threads again and I don't see anybody advocating any non-disclosure or deception.

Click to expand...

Read them again, why do you think it had to be done within six months for it to work?
Also some solicitors do not want to be involved as, among other things, they have to give undertakings that they knowingly have no intention of carrying out.

Sarenco said:

I don't mean to be rude but I've really no idea what you are talking about.

Click to expand...

I also don't mean to be rude when I say that's fine.

Ok, I have carefully re-read the threads and no poster is recommending any deception.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having approvals in principle in place with multiple lenders at the same time. In fact, it’s good practice from a borrower’s perspective.

I completely understand why any busy solicitor would give this work (or, frankly, any residential conveyancing work) a swerve. The fee wouldn’t justify the risk/hassle for most.

But that doesn’t imply that there is any deception of anybody taking place.

You seem to have a moral objection to borrowers switching repeatedly to get the best deals possible. That is a bizarre attitude to me.

Sarenco said:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having approvals in principle in place with multiple lenders at the same time

Click to expand...

This multiple switching does not work with AIP's.

Sarenco said:

I completely understand why any busy solicitor would give this work (or, frankly, any residential conveyancing work) a swerve. The fee wouldn’t justify the risk/hassle for most.

Click to expand...

Not the reason why the work is refused.

Sarenco said:

You seem to have a moral objection to borrowers switching repeatedly to get the best deals possible. That is a bizarre attitude to me.

Click to expand...

Please try to refrain from making personal comments. I have no control over what you may find bizarre.

I am not going to discuss this further with you as the steps/method used to obtain multiple switches within six months appear to elude you.

SparkRite said:

@Brendan Burgess I really don't know how much simpler I can say it, but I'll give it a go or maybe you are being purposely obtuse.

Click to expand...

SparkRite said:

@Sarenco Please try to refrain from making personal comments.

Click to expand...

Hilarious!

Saying that I find your attitude to switching bizarre is hardly a personal comment!

There is nothing wrong with gaming the system to avail of multiple cash back offers. That does not constitute deception or subterfuge and is neither immoral nor unethical.

@mf1 explained in considerable detail why he dislikes acting on multiple switches. But it wasn’t a principled objection - he was quite explicit on that point.

Whether multiple switches are carried out within 6 months or over some longer period is beside the point - there is no deception in either case and no posters advocated deceiving anybody.

That was your original claim and that has not been shown to be correct.

Another thread bites the dust.

rustbucket said:

Another thread bites the dust.

Click to expand...

But it started in the dust!

Sarenco said:

Saying that I find your attitude to switching bizarre is hardly a personal comment!

Click to expand...

No it's not, however:-

You seem to have a moral objection to borrowers switching repeatedly

Click to expand...

Judging my morals most certainly is !

Sarenco said:

Whether multiple switches are carried out within 6 months or over some longer period is beside the point

Click to expand...

It most definitely is not beside the point, the whole basis of the multiple switches is that it has to be carried out within six months or else wait at least a year between switches.

Sarenco said:

there is no deception in either case and no posters advocated deceiving anybody.

Click to expand...

Look, for the sake of clarity I'll give quick synopsis of how it works and you make up your own mind.

You are with your bank (A) for over 12 months (important, as most lenders will insist that you are with your previous lender for at least this time) for your mortgage. You want to do multiple switches to obtain the cashback offers. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, but rather than abide by the rules you use subterfuge to speed up things.

1) You simultaneously apply to banks B,C,D and E and give all details, hoping to switch to/from banks B,C,D and end on E. You know at this stage that the information given to banks C,D and E will be incorrect when drawing down the mortgage. For this to work you keep quiet (non-disclosure).

2) You obtain 4 letters of offer, valid for six months (hence the necessity to complete all switches within that time period) . Again you know at this stage that the conditions and basis of 3 of these LOO's is different from what you supplied at application. For this to work you keep quiet (non-disclosure).

3) You direct a solicitor to start the process and he/she must be on board with this also, as undertakings are given by the solicitor to the various lenders. These undertakings are knowingly never going to carried out, nor were they ever intending to carry them out. ( Call this what you like, but I know what I would call it.) Also the solicitor must not let lenders C,D and E know that material information relating to their client has changed since they issued their LOO. ( I would call all this (at best) duplicity )

4) All changes must be performed within the six months validity of the LOO's, for the reason stated above.

If banks C,D or E are told that pertinent information supplied at time of issue of the LOO has since changed, then it is highly likely that the offer would be rescinded and the whole stratagem would collapse.

The above is a very short synopsis of what takes place, in practice there are more lies and deceit used for it to work within the allowed time.

I was very surprised that this was actively discussed and encouraged on AAM. It even went so far as people congratulating each other on how many thousands of Euros they exploited from the scheme. At the very best it employs a lot of 'sleight of hand' and you, I and every other person who didn't go down that path is paying for it out of our pockets.

That is why I don't like it and nothing to do with :-

Sarenco said:

objection to borrowers switching repeatedly to get the best deals possible

Click to expand...

Now do you see why I say 'It is not in keeping with the spirit of the scheme'?

If the lenders ignore multiple switches and pay out the incentives, that’s fine.

Equally, if the lenders say “no, you’re a serial switcher, we’re turning you down”, that’s also fine.

The two positions aren’t in conflict.

Brendan Burgess said:

Hilarious!

Click to expand...

Excellent reply Brendan.

Gordon Gekko said:

If the lenders ignore multiple switches and pay out the incentives, that’s fine.

Equally, if the lenders say “no, you’re a serial switcher, we’re turning you down”, that’s also fine.

The two positions aren’t in conflict.

Click to expand...

Absolutely agree, as long as both parties are 100% above board.