What if bank adds 60k to borrowers salary on loan application?

Status
Not open for further replies.
usernameinuse said:
She has paid almost €200,000 to date and is willing to give back the property.
Click to expand...
Are you sure this is correct ? So the original price is in the region of 600k depending on the rates.
Btw she has lived in the place for 10 years, this may well be the going rent for it. She would have had to rent elsewhere anyway.
 
usernameinuse said:
The fact the banker and valuer are no longer working for the bank raises the question: were other borrowers affected and the bank covered up?.
Click to expand...

At this point this is just a rant with no credibility. No of any further interest.
 
usernameinuse said:
She has paid almost €200,000 to date and is willing to give back the property.
Click to expand...

Remember, the bank didn't buy the property, she did. The bank lent her a sum of money, and that is what they want back, irrespective of what she did with it. (I know this is a bit of a simplification, but it is the way the bank will look at it).
For her to have it any other way, a PIA would be a way to go. Everything else is noise, and a hiding to nothing.
 
I was just thinking about this again this morning, is the extra income put in as just salary or is it down as room rental or is the rental potential of the property? You state it is in a scenic location, if it were a 5 bed house bought as a BTL for summer lettings could the extra income come under this scheme? I know it doesn't really matter but you can't just lob 60k onto a basic salary from nowhere if it's not backed up in payslips and p60. Potential room rental or any type of rental was very generously included back in those days!

I know you say the house is 3 bedroomed, as it happens I have a 5 bedroomed house but if anyone were to look around they would call it a 3 bed as only 3 bedrooms are fitted out as bedrooms, another one is a study and another I use as a craft room, however if I were selling in the morning they would be bedrooms for the purposes of valuation or sale.
 
Monbretia said:
I know you say the house is 3 bedroomed
Click to expand...
It is only 3 bedroom, no craft room or study, and no mention of rental. You would not be able to rent out the other 2 bedrooms for over 60k a year anyway, it is quite a rural location.


Buddyboy said:
the bank didn't buy the property, she did.
Click to expand...
It is in effect the banks property until it is paid for in full, is it not?

The bank sent out a valuer of their own choosing to value the property to make sure it was as it was supposed to be and good security. They got the borrower to pay for it but never gave a receipt and never sent a copy of the valuation (until the borrower got it many years later under data request). Why did the valuer, the bankers relation, say it was a 5 bedroom instead of a 3 bedroom, and say it was double glazed etc?

A Personal Insolvency Practitioner (PIP) has said that debts arising from a loan (or forbearance of a loan) "obtained through fraud or similar wrongdoing" are not suitable for a PIA. He is to look further in to it but said if there is a question mark of fraud it may not be suitable, but it could be investigated further to see what went on. For example, he said, the borrower could have got the valuer to make an incorrect valuation for all he knows, or the banker to add 60 or 65k to their salary. Further investigation is necessary, he said.
If the Gardai Fraud squad can establish that any fraud and wrongdoing was completely internal to the bank, that should help the borrowers case in getting a PIA.
 
This is getting really stupid now. You had not told us about the PIP before.

It seems probable that the PIP suspects your friend of active participation in the fraud which explains why a PIA would not be allowed.

If she lied about her salary or otherwise corroborated she does not deserve the protection of a PIA.

Brendan
 

I think you'll find that any criminal definition of fraud will have a very specific meaning and I would say it's likely to be questionable at best if what you describe meets that definition.

I'd ask samilar questions as others: what do you expect to happen or what do you believe should happen here?

I would suggest the best solution is to sell the house and if there is a shortfall on the loan amount use the questionable process around the granting of the loan as leverage in requesting it to be written down. I'd argue that something like that is a reasonable outcome for both parties.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
You had not told us about the PIP before.
Click to expand...
That is because the initial discussion with the PIP was just today.

Brendan Burgess said:
It seems probable that the PIP suspects your friend of active participation in the fraud which explains why a PIA would not be allowed.
Click to expand...
It may seem probable to you but the borrower did not write the internal loan report or make out the valuation. The P60 and payslips were correct and not tampered with. My friend is keen for the fraud squad to look in to it so the people who prepared the loan report and valuation can be properly interviewed, and they can explain their reports.
 
As Brendan said, the PIP is only interested in whether your friend defrauded the bank, which would make them ineligible for a PIA. After that it's really very simple: she borrowed the money at an agreed amount and an agreed rate and is 100% personally responsible for knowing what she was getting into and paying it back. If she cannot pay it she needs to declare herself insolvent.

At this stage it seems that your "advice" is potentially compounding the problems she got herself into ten years ago, and causing her new problems today with the PIP. Even if major irregularities were found with the bank's internal procedures, it would be the bank that had been defrauded, not your friend. It's clear she's clutching at straws and willing to listen to another equally deluded person willing to entertain the notion that she shouldn't have to pay the money back, i.e. you. Understandable, but pointless and potentially damaging.
 
Last edited:
dub_nerd said:
As Brendan said, the PIP is only interested in whether your friend defrauded the bank, which would make them ineligible for a PIA.
Click to expand...
Actually, having seen the copy of the loan report, P60, payslips etc the PIP said he is interested in seeing justice done and the banker and valuer investigated too.

dub_nerd said:
At this stage it seems that your "advice" is potentially compounding the problems she got herself into ten years ago,
Click to expand...
I did not give my friend advice, except to pay €6.35 to get her file from the bank, and recently to go to a PIP for their opinions.

dub_nerd said:
Even if major irregularities were found with the bank's internal procedures, it would be the bank that had been defrauded, not your friend.
Click to expand...

Correct. I said "The rogue banker and valuer, who are no longer working for the bank, defrauded the bank. You could say the banks shareholders were also defrauded, as they did not know or approve of such wrongdoing." The effect of the incorrect, some would say fraudulent loan report and valuation meant my friend got a loan she should not have got, and is at a loss as a result, but the banker and valuer did not set out to deceive the borrower by the incorrect loan report or valuation, as she did not see them until many years later. In fact she may not have seen them at all had I not suggested she get a copy of her file for €6.35

Andy836 said:
LOL

Seriously.
Click to expand...

Yes. Because the Bank will not explain why the loan report shows her salary over 60k more than her real salary (as proven by payslips, P60 etc), and the untrue valuation, my friend wants it investigated and explained. It might stop the same thing happening to others in future.
 
Your friend has not incurred a loss, the Bank has. She received whatever the loan sum was and she purchased a house which she now owns. The Bank has suffered a loss as they have not received any repayments of the principal sum after several years.

There are several issues with this story that are not very credible but if your friend wants to go to the Fraud Squad, off she goes. I wouldn't bother personally as there are too many holes in the story and it also will not be of any assistance to your friend, who will still have to repay the Bank.

If you really want to help your friend, go see another PIP as it does not appear that he is recommending a PIA. If he is, then stick with him. That is the only way your client will resolve this matter without a great deal of stress and forcible loss of her home.
 


Excellent point.
 
Your friend must have had some very thick blinkers on when she took out her loan.

Unless she's a complete idiot she would have realised that the amount she was borrowing was so many multiples of her salary at the time.

It suited her at the time for the figures to work the way they did so she ran with them. She's not entirely blameless in the whole scenario.
 
PaddyBloggit said:
Unless she's a complete idiot she would have realised that the amount she was borrowing was so many multiples of her salary at the time.
Click to expand...
Unless the bankers were complete idiots they would have realised that the amount she was borrowing was so many multiples of her salary at the time. After all, she supplied them with her P60, payslips etc. Yet the banker reassured her everything was ok, after adding over 60k to her salary on the loan report, unknown to the borrower.

PaddyBloggit said:
It suited her at the time for the figures to work the way they did so she ran with them. She's not entirely blameless in the whole scenario.
Click to expand...
Nobody suggested she was completely blameless. She should have been much less trusting of the mortgage experts. At the very least she should have got the bank to indicate how much capital and interest repayments would be. She would have walked if she got that information.


cremeegg said:
The fraud squad is not some type of free of charge, private detective.
Click to expand...
If they are not interested in investigating white collar wrongdoing, they will say so. I'd imagine it will be no harm to show them the dodgy documents and valuation, and the lack of explanation from the bank, and see what they say. Some people have been prosecuted for a lot less.
 

I'd love to know who these "some people" are so they could appeal their sentences... There is a very high standard of proof to secure a criminal conviction and some alterations to documents by parties unknown, would not be proof beyond reasonable doubt.

You clearly are not interested in taking on the good advice that has already been posted as you clearly know better. Best of luck with it.
 
PaddyBloggit said:
It suited her at the time for the figures to work the way they did so she ran with them. She's not entirely blameless in the whole scenario.
Click to expand...
More than that, she was doggedly determined to get the loan, having been told she wasn't qualified to borrow half the amount. Funny how someone who "knows nothing about finance" is cute enough to get the money, and only comes over all stupid when it's time to pay it back.

usernameinuse said:
At the very least she should have got the bank to indicate how much capital and interest repayments would be. She would have walked if she got that information.
Click to expand...
Complete rubbish. She didn't walk when she was offered more than twice what another bank considered her qualified to borrow. She didn't bother to ask the nearest person capable of using a website to bang the numbers into a mortgage calculator. This story is balderdash. She wants to make believe that she was defrauded into taking out a loan. She wasn't.
 
Dazzler123 said:
She didn't bother to ask the nearest person capable of using a website to bang the numbers into a mortgage calculator.
Click to expand...
Did every nearest person in rural Ireland in 2007 have broadband, never mind know what a mortgage calculator was?

Dazzler123 said:
some alterations to documents by parties unknown
Click to expand...
The bank should have a record of who prepared the loan report, and whose job it was to verify the borrowers payslip / P60 etc. Paper trail And there was only one valuer involved in the valuation. Surely no harm in looking for an explanation anyway, the PIP said its better to do that before proceeding with a PIA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register