Sue mortgage lender for unrealistic loan approval?

I bought a commercial property 6 years ago, which was well located and had a good tenant in it. I was on €60k a year in my job and an assistant manager. I have since seen the report that the commercial lending manager put to their underwriters for my case and in it, they stated that I was a manager on €80k. This was in order for me to get the loan facility through.
I went through no broker to organise the loan facility, I provided no documents stating these incorrect facts and I was unaware that this was put forward as part of my case. I would not have got the loan facility if the correct facts were presented.
I am not looking to sue anyone or run from my repsonsibilities, but just wondering what people think of my case.
It seems the commercial lending manager had a target to reach and would do whatever he could to get the money out
 
Greensquare said:
At the time the broker told me he would get the value of the house bumped up by 15% for the paperwork, so that he could then give me 90% of the higher value, which in reality would be 100% mortgage of the cost price.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is the contract price/price you paid for the property was 100% and the valuation was 115% and the bank gave you 90% of the valuation price?
 
Strange the underwriters did not want to see proof of the 80k. Any underwriter i ever dealt with wanted to see hard evidence. Were there bonuses, overtime, rental, anything that could have increased the 60k
 
Hard evidence can be faked. During the boom blank P60 forms were valuable documents.
 
NorfBank said:
So what you're saying is the contract price/price you paid for the property was 100% and the valuation was 115% and the bank gave you 90% of the valuation price?
Click to expand...

Yeah. I didn't have the money for a deposit at the time so he said, "Right, lets assume the value of the property has gone up since you agreed the price. I'll value it high enough so that 90% of that increased value will give you 100% of the purchase price."
I'd be fairly financially literate, and I asked if this was ok to do, and he just smirked and said, "thats how things are done".
I knew at the time is was wrong, but I, like many others, was caught up in the frenzy that meant that if you didn't have a 2nd property, you were lazy/an idiot/narrow minded/overly cautious/lacking ambition (take your pick).
So my property with a 100% mortgage has halved in value since, leaving me with a fairly sizeable negative equity black hole.
But my point still stands, I made the final decision, so the consequences are mine to deal with it.
 
I know they could be fake and many were but OP made it sound like underwriters took managers word for it without any evidence, fake or otherwise.
 
rsta said:
Just wondering if anyone has ever sued their mortgage lender?

My mortgage was granted about 4 years ago and even back then I was struggling to pay it with a full weeks wages.

Is it possible to sue a mortgage lender for approving a loan that I would never be able to manage?

Thanks
Click to expand...

Absolutley no chance of suing the mortgage provider. You knew your outgoings & still went ahead with the purchase, although you knew you couldn't afford it. Being brutaklly honest there's no-one to blame but yourself. Too many people blamed the banks for lending too much, maybe people should sit up & take note that they borrowed too much!
 
toby2449 said:
Absolutley no chance of suing the mortgage provider
Click to expand...

I don't see how you can be that definitive.

Surely the salient point is whether the lending institution (or broker if relevant) had a duty of care to the borrower? I would have thought that this question has yet to be considered by the Courts.
 
It would all get very mired. The regulator, who clearly and specifically has a duty of care to consumers was also aware and did nothing, .. and is un-prosecutable I'd imagine.

If he was un-aware he was incompetent.. at a minimum he should have taken pro-active action in regards to rumours which must have been massively widespread, that income multiples were being ignored or massaged, and that the rules, as is common in Ireland, were being ignored or stretched beyond credibility.

From a technical viewpoint he doesn't seem to have protected consumers in relation to interest-only, or 100% mortgages,.. which don't appear to be recommended internationally, as they encourage over borrowing.

So the banks can legitimely say that they were acting with the implicit approval of the Irish Regulator, and thus with the approval of the Irish Government.

I think a case will be taken, and some could win, particularily in relation to people over 50 getting long mortgages past the retirement age... but also people having multiple mortgages where the repayment capacity is mainly based on rental and income gained from mortgaged properties.
 
I certainly did not fake my P60. I did not make that money on bonuses. It was my salary and that was it.
The credit committee took the managers word for it as if I was a manager in my job, I would have been on €80k.
No evidence was requested at all
 
I think there's an argument that the regulator was set up by Bertie, to keep things at a distance. A distance that then was maintained. To what end you can speculate all day.
 
DTJAE said:
You are obviously not familiar with the mortgage lending game?? You don't put a value on your house, the bank send out an independant valuer to value you home for them....So now who's been over pricing houses as well as the auctioneers????
Click to expand...

Actually you do put a value on it, when you agree to pay a price. It is immaterial whether you ask someone else's opinion beforehand or agree with your lender to accept their valuation, at the end of the day it is your name on the contract. Again we circle back to this notion that you are an innocent abroad, a lamb among wolves, at the mercy of all takers... the only way to work against that is to take responsibility for your actions.

DTJAE said:
You do sound like someone who either works in a bank, for a bank or is in the lending game, either way i do believe that the banks and the brokers are more to blame than the borrower, like it has been said several times already, these guys are supposed to be the experts and get paid exteremly well for being so (just like our corrupt politicians and look what happend to FF) Why can't the same game be played with the bankers??
Click to expand...
Well sorry to disappoint you, I don't work in finance in any professional capacity - I only deal with my own plate, my own finances. What I do though is I try not to be passive about my finances, I try to ensure that my decisions have some merit and I always take the consequences of my decisions, good or bad.

DTJAE said:
I assume your doctor is qualified to ensure the best health service for you and your neighbourhood??? And if that wasn't the case and he recklessly or unprofessionally sold you the wrong health product or medication or prescribed an expensive medication you did not require to increase his precriptions for the chemists he would be held accountalbe regardless of what you told him your symptoms were, he is required to investigate to ensure the product is suitable and will not affect you in a negative manner. THATS A PROFESSIONAL/EXPERT
Click to expand...
Not entirely sure what you are trying to get at here but I am assuming you are comparing a GP to a financial advisor? The professional restrictions and the entry requirements for a GP bear no relation to those for a financial advisor so as a comparison it is ill-founded. Are you trying to suggest that not paying off your debts because you have suddenly awoken to the fact that you owe more than you want to afford (by your own hand and agency) is the same as a potentially fatal misdiagnosis? A more likely issue with a GP is a prediliction for prescribing expensive branded concoctions rather than generic - but that is a totally different issue.
 
rsta said:
My mortgage loan amount approved and granted was 7 times my annual salary..!
Click to expand...

We got approved for 2 mortgages when I was on long term social welfare, and my husband was self employed. We actually had no definite income, and we got approved for a combined mortgage of nearly 400,000 - that was 5 years ago. Half of this was to fund a second home in the country, which never got off the ground, but still got 230,000 of a mortgage on our home which is now worth 130k. We thank our lucky stars cause at the time we were approved for 1 million euros to buy investment properties - I wouldnt have ever slept owing that much money. I think the bank was very reckless in lending us 230k for this house, never mind the 1 million approval to buy investment houses, but we were as reckless in accepting the mortgage. I think we all got caught up in the hype that was the boom, but banks were only partially responsible. It was a mortgage broker who got this deal for us, and he filled in all the right figures to ensure we were passed. All we had to do was sign - the rest is history. But we were just as negligent as the banks in agreeing to this ridiculous loan, so we just have to live with it and learn from it.
 
Banks were meant to be responsible in their lending..if they lent to people who had no hope of repaying then we can only blame the "professionals"..ie the banks.
When the banks were so anxious to lend money they rarely seemed to take into account what people had after tax to repay their mortgage and live..so yes I would call that irresponsible on their part.
If a parent gives a child too many sweets and the child becomes sick from eating them the parent is at fault as they should have known better...apply this to banks and put them in the position of parents..
I wish people would stop making excuses for the banks and saying that we(the general public) should have been more responsible ..so maybe we should but if you have a lending institution (who should have known better) telling you that you can afford this loan is it any wonder so many people believed them?
How may of us knew so much about finance before we began to lose money in our take home pay, or lose our jobs ?
I am sure many of us have learned some lessons ...and by the way we have contributed many billions to the banks from tax payers money ..what else do they want..blood?
 
Banks do not owe you the duty of care that your parents owed you when you were a small child. Now that you are an adult do you still expect your parents to dole out the sweeties? Only adults can make a contract, and as adults they must take their own responsibility.
 
blackgold said:
Banks were meant to be responsible in their lending..if they lent to people who had no hope of repaying then we can only blame the "professionals"..ie the banks.
Click to expand...

Reality check - banks are a business just like any other and when they screw up they go to the wall, just like any other business, there is nothing new it this. This is exactly what happened to the Irish banks, they were badly managed and the owners, the shareholders, paid the price - they lost their investment! The banks now belong to the state and any benefit that will accrue from them will fall to the public exchequer, not the shareholders.

There is no doubt that many people have learned a very hard less about personal responsibility, but at the end of the day society functions on the basis that adults are able to make decisions in respect of their own well being. And if we move away from that idea where do we start and where do we stop?

I do believe that one great failing in our education system both here and in Switzerland, where I live, is that we fail to teach people the basic skills of person finance. Between the ages of 13 and 18, I think everyone should learn the basics of budgeting, consumer credit, insurance and so on, so that when they go into the world they have some idea of how it all works, but that is a discussion for another day.

Jim.
 
It's all very well blaming the banks but at the end of the day you cut your own cloth. I would love to eat in Shanahans every day and drive a 5 series but on my wages I can't afford it.

Economies ALWAYS cycle, peaks and troughs and the number of people who decided to buy a house that was 40% more than it was two years earlier, if people waited the banks would have had nobody to lend to, the builders would have lowered their prices and you get a house at a more realistic price.

People are using their mistakes to blame everyone but themselves but it's not hard to do budget and if you don't know interest rates increase and economies slump then you must be living on another planet.

As for this nonsense regarding debt forgiveness and taking actions against banks because you stuck a mill stone around your neck is nothing but petulance.

If people have their loans reduced or written off then what message does that send to people? Go get another huge loan and you have precidence to get it written off.
 
steevo51 said:
It's all very well blaming the banks but at the end of the day you cut your own cloth. I would love to eat in Shanahans every day and drive a 5 series but on my wages I can't afford it.

Economies ALWAYS cycle, peaks and troughs and the number of people who decided to buy a house that was 40% more than it was two years earlier, if people waited the banks would have had nobody to lend to, the builders would have lowered their prices and you get a house at a more realistic price.

People are using their mistakes to blame everyone but themselves but it's not hard to do budget and if you don't know interest rates increase and economies slump then you must be living on another planet.

As for this nonsense regarding debt forgiveness and taking actions against banks because you stuck a mill stone around your neck is nothing but petulance.

If people have their loans reduced or written off then what message does that send to people? Go get another huge loan and you have precidence to get it written off.
Click to expand...

Exactly my sentiments.
We all (myself included) have to learn the hard way that we have to take responsibility for our own decisions. We are not the victims of greedy banks. If anything, we are victims of our own stupidity or vanity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top