Rejected purely on switching frequency

Status
Not open for further replies.

You are the only one talking about duplicity or subterfuge but you haven't provided one example of either.
 
What subterfuge?

What duplicity?

What lack of transparency?

What exactly are you talking about?
 
What on earth are you talking about?

It’s almost as if you’re contending that the likes of PTSB had a condition that a borrower must remain with them for X period and that both the borrower and the solicitor were somehow misrepresenting the intention to the bank.

THERE WAS NO SUCH CONDITION!

People could undertake multiple switches; there was no impediment to them doing so. No rule, no law, no moral issue. Nothing.

And the banks were probably fine with that because the vast majority of people don’t undertake multiple switches, so they were still coining it even if a few smart and nimble folks boxed very clever.

Now based on the evidence here, banks are being smarter about it, and that’s fine.

I only wish I’d switched multiple times. But I’ve too much on and it seemed like a lot of hassle. Silly on my part. But there you go.
 
For me, this post from mf1 (in another thread) appears to cut to the heart of this debate. If I'm reading correctly, the first two sentences refer to what I'm calling sequential (/serial) switches, and that scenario is fine. The rest of the post, which (assuming I'm reading correctly) mf1 considers at least dubious, refers to parallel switches.
 
Sunny said:
I am sorry but that is complete rubbish.
Click to expand...
Ah someone new....I see you used the word 'rubbish'. I had a post pulled on me for using the word 'nonsense' once.

So you think if subsequent banks were informed that the information on their clients applications has changed since they offered the loan, that would be fine with them?
So you think that if subsequent banks were informed that their client has been with their previous lender for a day, that would be fine with them?
So you think that if subsequent banks were informed that a different bank than the one mentioned in the application form now has a lien on the property, that would be fine with them?
So you think that all banks (except the last one) were told that the deeds will not be registered in their name, but we still want the drawdown, that would be fine with them?

Of course it wouldn't and it is the withholding of this information along with false undertakings that forms the basis for the 6 month plan.

If my memory serves me correctly, and I can't remember what it's called, but I'm sure there is some law about giving information that is correct at that time but the person KNOWS that when the contract is formed said information will not be correct. ie. The application forms for the mortgage.
 
Gordon Gekko said:
What on earth are you talking about?
Click to expand...
What on earth are YOU talking about??
I never suggested or intimated any of the points in your post.
I have no problem and never have had a problem with multiple switchers!
 
Last edited:
SparkRite said:
It is as clear as the nose on your face EXACTLY what information is being withheld on subsequent switches within the 6 month stratagem.
Click to expand...
It is only withholding if they ask. They simply do not request any information regarding future intentions, indeed the application forms don't have anywhere you could supply that kind of information.
 
SparkRite said:
Ahh Leo, now you now better than that..........Utmost Good Faith ?
Click to expand...
I do, withholding is defined as refusal to give something that is due or desired. If the bank desired that information, it would be a really simple matter to update their application forms. To my knowledge, none of the providers here ask the question despite knowing that most borrowers will switch rates or providers before the full mortgage term is up.
 
@Leo @Gordon Gekko @Sarenco @Sunny

I'm trying to understand why you feel SparkRite is incorrect.

I find the following dubious - do you disagree?:
Say I'm with AIB and I decide to switch to BOI, then immediately to KBC. When it comes to finalising the switch to KBC, I'm telling them they're taking on the mortgage from AIB (rather than BOI).
I think that's a bit of a difference that KBC should be told about.
Isn't it akin to the simpler situation of: I switch from EBS to PTSB, and then at the last minute lose my job but hide it, before signing for final drawdown?

Additionally, as I understand it, at some point my solicitor has to have identical undertakings to both BOI and KBC - it seems at the very least odd for it to be ok that a solicitor promises two entities the same thing at the same time.
 
Leo said:
I do, withholding is defined as refusal to give something that is due or desired
Click to expand...
Without getting into semantics, it does not alter the fact that the present lender and length of time with said lender, has changed to what was on the original application form (which AFAIK is asked), is not, shall we say, forthcoming.
Ergo a contact is knowingly ratified based on inaccurate information .
 
Concrete said:
Additionally, as I understand it, at some point my solicitor has to have identical undertakings to both BOI and KBC - it seems at the very least odd for it to be ok that a solicitor promises two entities the same thing at the same time.
Click to expand...
Also in the '6 month plan' he has no intention of carrying out any of them except the last one.
 
SparkRite said:
Ergo a contact is knowingly ratified based on inaccurate information .
Click to expand...
Based on that logic, everyone who ever clears a mortgage early or switches to another lender at any point in the initial contract term is being dishonest!
 
SparkRite said:
What on earth are YOU talking about??
I never suggested or intimated any of the points in your post.
I have no problem and never have had a problem with multiple switchers!
Click to expand...
I’m just not smart enough to understand your point so.

Apologies.
 
Leo said:
Based on that logic, everyone who ever clears a mortgage early or switches to another lender at any point in the initial contract term is being dishonest!
Click to expand...
Ah c'mon Leo !
We both know the answer to that.
 
If switchers were doing something illegal I'm pretty sure the banks would be all over them fairly quickly. As it stands both parties seem to be upholding their part of the contract, paying all monies that are owed. I really don't see a problem.
 
SparkRite said:
Ahh Leo, now you now better than that..........Utmost Good Faith ?
Click to expand...
The doctrine of uberrimae fidei does not apply to lending agreements.

But even if it did, the doctrine requires full disclosure of known facts - not future intentions.

With respect, you haven’t a clue what you are talking about.
 
I was filling in a mortgage application today and there was a question around if I planned to switch mortgage within 3 years......
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register