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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Look, it is really down to the purpose of your posts.

If it is to have the bank official and the valuer prosecuted, having read the various contributions from posters and your responses, I would have said do as you see fit and see how you get on.

However, it is not really your decision is it? You won’t be the one taking action. One way or another you will have nothing to lose, except perhaps your friend.
 
So this is even sillier on your friend's part. The banker told her that he didn't know what future interest rates would be, yet he told her she could afford them? What gombeen would conclude anything other than he was having her on? You are compounding the view that your friend hadn't an ounce of common sense.

usernameinuse said:
The bank described themselves, and advertise themselves as mortgage experts with decades of experience.
Click to expand...
Nobody could be unaware that houses prices have gone down in the past and could again in the future. At the time your friend bought there had already been two major printed/documentary items that caused national furores over the prospect of an imminent price collapse.

usernameinuse said:
If the bank had put her on a tracker she would not have spent almost 200k.
Click to expand...
The bank was under no obligation to offer her a tracker, nor were trackers necessarily the best option at that particular time. If she was affected by the tracker debacle she would be entitled to redress and I presume she isn't. So this is a complete irrelevance.

usernameinuse said:
The banker said she could roll over the interest only period.
Click to expand...
And pay another 200k in interest? Why on earth would that be a good thing?

usernameinuse said:
She was not even told what her mortgage repayments would be (capital and interest) before she took out the mortgage.
Click to expand...
But they're not hard to work out, or to ask someone else to do it, and a six year old would understand that the repayments must go up not down.

usernameinuse said:
She maintained the property and she paid almost 200k in interest. What more do you want her to do?
Click to expand...
It's her property. I would hope she'd maintain it. The bank just has a mortgage over it. She paid the interest she signed up to pay, in full knowledge. You make it sound like she was doing someone a favour. What the bank wants her to do is pay what she agreed.

No, I think your story about the banker is probably believable. I believe they conspired to give her a bigger mortgage than she should even have got. Yes, I'd love to see them punished and everyone else who stoked the bubble. Your friend was part of that, but she's going to pay a heavy price. Just because I think the banker deserves a kick doesn't mean it's going to happen. In fact I don't think there's the remotest chance of it ever happening. And if it did, it wouldn't help your friend one iota. She's got more things to worry about right now.

So here's another question for you -- what do you hope to achieve here by banging on endlessly about the misdeeds of the banker?
 
Your friend was obviously incredibly imprudent, perhaps even stupid, to take out such a big loan relative to her means.

But that's history. She now has to deal with the consequences of her appalling decision.

Ranting and raving about "rogue bankers" doesn't help a jot. Your friend is still liable to repay the loan that she signed up for regardless.
 
dub_nerd said:
The banker told her that he didn't know what future interest rates would be, yet he told her she could afford them?
Click to expand...
He said he expected them to go down. Yes tracker rates have come down, but variable rates are still high.
All other people I ever met were told what their repayments (capital and interest) would be before they took out their mortgage. Mine certainly were.

Hindsight is wonderful. On 4 July 2007, the Toiseach stated at a conference that he did not understand why people sitting on the sidelines, "cribbing and moaning" about the economy, did not commit suicide. Many bank economists, media commentators, estate agents, property developers and business leaders went on the record to state their belief that the Irish property market was healthy.

dub_nerd said:
I believe they conspired to give her a bigger mortgage than she should even have got. Yes, I'd love to see them punished and everyone else who stoked the bubble.
Click to expand...
Well, Iceland is a country with a population of only about 330,000, but yet dozens of bankers have been jailed there. A popular and successful move there, by all accounts.

dub_nerd said:
what do you hope to achieve here by banging on endlessly about the misdeeds of the banker?
Click to expand...
The borrower made mistakes, but so did the banker. Perhaps other people can be saved from such banking wrongdoing in the future?
 
Last edited:
You truly have to be kidding. The government and vested interests talking up the economy? Has it ever been any other way? The fact of the matter is that rumours abounded about an imminent collapse. That's why the vested interests had to respond. Even The Late Late Show featured several potential young borrowers and asked them how scared they were of a price collapse. You're not going to tell me they can't get The Late Late Show in rural Ireland now, are you? Anyway, none of that is relevant. If your friend thinks Bertie Aherne talked her into an unsuitable mortgage along with the banker, let her sue him too. It won't help her.

dub_nerd said:
what do you hope to achieve here by banging on endlessly about the misdeeds of the banker?
Click to expand...
usernameinuse said:
The borrower made mistakes, but so did the banker. Perhaps other people can be saved from such banking wrongdoing in the future?
Click to expand...
Newsflash for you -- your warning about rogue bankers is ten years too late. The rest of us suffered the consequences, paid the hiked up taxes, and took it on the chin. Your friend did too obviously. As for people overpaying ridiculously for property -- that hasn't changed as people are doing it again. This time the banks are probably protecting themselves a bit better (though not enough in my opinion). No matter. Your warning is neither timely nor especially useful.
 
usernameinuse said:
Perhaps other people can be saved from such banking wrongdoing in the future?
Click to expand...
But your friend didn't suffer any harm as a result of this alleged "wrong doing". She got the loan she wanted.

Now she has to take responsibility for her appalling decision.
 
Sarenco said:
But your friend didn't suffer any harm as a result of this alleged "wrong doing".
Click to expand...
Financially she did. If the banker had behaved as they promised to, and if they had not added 60k to her salary on her loan report, and used a false valuation, the borrower would not be in the position she is in. She would not have suffered such a huge loss, which was forseeable to the mortgage experts.

Sarenco said:
She got the loan she wanted.
Click to expand...
But not a loan suitable for her needs, not by a long shot.
If a patient of the nurse "wanted" certain medication, and the nurse fraudulently altered documentation and gave her patient medication unsuitable to their needs, which changes the patients life forever, would not the nurse have questions to answer?
 
Didn't she apply for the loan? Didn't she get what she wanted?

The fact that she was insane to look for such a big loan is her issue. The bank has no responsibility to look after the borrower's interests.
 
Sarenco said:
Didn't she apply for the loan? Didn't she get what she wanted?
Click to expand...

Yes, and it was on the understanding that she submitted her P60, payslips etc to the bank for them to evaluate her suitability for a loan. They told her they done a loan report and she was suitable for a mortgage and could afford it. They did not tell her they fraudulently added over €60,000 to her salary on the loan report.

She did not see the loan report, or valuation, until many years later.
Even the worst of second hand car salesmen would not behave like that.

Sarenco said:
She got the loan she wanted.
Click to expand...
As asked before, if a patient of the nurse "wanted" certain medication, and the nurse fraudulently altered documentation and gave her patient medication unsuitable to their needs, which changes the patients life forever, would not the nurse have questions to answer?




Sarenco said:
The bank has no responsibility to look after the borrower's interests.
Click to expand...
Then why does it claim, according to their own publicity, to look for "proof that you have the earnings and self-discipline to repay your mortgage not just for the first year but long into the future." As said before they advertise and claim to check the borrower (quote) "will be comfortably able to afford your mortgage repayments with enough money left over to live your life in comfort."



 
Last edited:
I really don't understand why you insist on these ridiculous analogies.

Your friend applied for a loan. She got the loan. If she can't uphold her end of the bargain, then she will have to face the consequences.

If the bank wants to pursue a former employee or valuer then that's up to them. Again, it has absolutely nothing to do with your friend.

At this stage, I think we have all spent enough time on this thread.
 
Sarenco said:
I really don't understand why you insist on these ridiculous analogies.
Click to expand...
Not all mine. It was Maz2408 who wrote:



You also wrote:
Sarenco said:
The bank has no responsibility to look after the borrower's interests.
Click to expand...
You still have not answered the question: Then why does it claim, according to their own publicity, to look for "proof that you have the earnings and self-discipline to repay your mortgage not just for the first year but long into the future." As said before they advertise and claim to check the borrower (quote) "will be comfortably able to afford your mortgage repayments with enough money left over to live your life in comfort."

And why did the bank seemingly fraudulently alter the loan report and valuation, upon which the loan agreement was based?
 
Last edited:
Sigh.

Again, a lender carries out its own due diligence, however imperfectly, on a borrower's ability to meet her obligations for its own benefit - not for the benefit of the borrower.

A lender owes no duty of care to a borrower.

Bottom line, a bank can be entirely reckless in advancing a loan - it does not provide a borrower with a defence in an enforcement scenario.

Your friend voluntarily took a loan. She owes the bank money. The rest is irrelevant.
 
Hi UserNameInUse.
I have great sympathy for your friend.
I think the bank has as big a problem as your friend with this loan. I think she should request a meeting with them and have a chat, and see if they can suggest any solutions to your friend.
But I suggest that she brings someone along with her, maybe yourself as both a witness and for moral support.
 
Also if she hasn't missed any payments yet she probably has an excellent credit rating at the moment.
To negotiate to try and find a solution before the problem actually hits may be a wise approach.
 
The smart thing for the borrower to do is to engage a PIP, through the Abhaile scheme, as previously advised by others.

Banging on about an alleged "fraud" is, at best, a complete waste of time.
 
Evidently your friend placed a huge amount of faith and trust in what the banker was telling her. So let me ask you this - if this banker had told her that she should borrow a million and that it would be grand, would she have done it? How about two million?
 
Sarenco said:
a lender carries out its own due diligence, however imperfectly, on a borrower's ability to meet her obligations for its own benefit
Click to expand...
It obviously did not do that in this case. Not only that but it looked at her P60 and payslips and added over 60k to her salary on its loan report, unknown to the borrower. That would be like a nurse or doctor altering a patients file, in order for the nurse or doctor to sell them a very expensive medication, but one which was totally unsuitable for the patients needs and which would alter the patients life forever for the worse.

Sarenco said:
The smart thing for the borrower to do is to engage a PIP
Click to expand...
She had one meeting with a PIP already, and he was astonished when he saw the loan report, copies of her P60, payslips, valuation etc in her file. I understand he said there is doubt about PIA being suitable when the loan was obtained due to suspected fraud and wrongdoing, but he is get further opinion, think things over and arrange a second meeting. If it was investigated properly at least the borrower could be cleared of any suspicion of involvement in the fraudulent loan report and valuation.

No, she just wanted a 3 bedroom house to live in, in a nice area. She was not greedy. She went to the mortgage experts, who had decades of experience, thinking it was the prudent thing to do. After all, according to their own publicity, they look for (quote) "proof that you have the earnings and self-discipline to repay your mortgage not just for the first year but long into the future." As said before they advertise and claim to check the borrower (quote) "will be comfortably able to afford your mortgage repayments with enough money left over to live your life in comfort."
When you worked in the mortgage sector LDFerguson, did you ever see any mortgages being sold at say 10 or 15 times the borrowers salary, and if so, did the banker who sold them ever expect them to be repaid, or did he know it would end in tears for the borrower? Decades of tears?

Do you think if a patient of the nurse asked about certain medication, and the nurse fraudulently altered documentation and gave or sold her patient medication unsuitable to their needs, which changed the patients life forever for the worse, would not the nurse have questions to answer?

Thank you for that. A meeting with the bank is a good suggestion. I'll suggest she brings someone along with her, for moral support and as a witness if nothing else, as she is the type who is easily fobbed off by technical jargon and experts in their field telling her what is best.
 
Last edited:
usernameinuse said:
No, she just wanted a 3 bedroom house to live in, in a nice area. She was not greedy.
Click to expand...

She borrowed an amount - was it €550,000? - that she could not afford to borrow. She applied for this amount, she was approved for this amount and she signed up for a loan of this amount. According to you, the only reason that she borrowed €550,000 was because this banker told her it was affordable and had falsified documents to support it internally. So if she borrowed €550,000 which she couldn't afford, then why wouldn't she borrow a million that she couldn't afford if she believed everything the banker told her? (Let's assume that this banker would have been equally willing to falsify documents to support a loan of a million.)


Part of my job was arranging mortgages and giving advice. So in that capacity, as a broker I replaced the local bank branch staff member. I was the one collecting the payslips and evidence of income and sending them on to the various lenders' head offices for approval. If someone was dealing directly with a bank branch, the bank branch would do the same. I can only speak for myself. I was never interested in getting involved with lies about a client's salary or falsifying documents in order to get them a bigger mortgage. Not the sort of business I run. I'm sure it happened though.
 
usernameinuse said:
I understand he said there is doubt about PIA being suitable when the loan was obtained due to suspected fraud and wrongdoing
Click to expand...
That is correct but, as already explained to you, that provision deals with circumstances where a debtor has fraudulently obtained a loan (which is criminal offence). Unless you are suggesting that your friend acted fraudulently, that provision is totally irrelevant in this case.
A nurse owes a duty of care to her patient. A lender owes no duty of care to a borrower. Your analogy is therefore completely meaningless.
 
LDFerguson said:
She borrowed an amount - was it €550,000?
Click to expand...
It was less than that, but I'd rather not say the exact amount, it is the borrowers business and I do not want to identify her.

LDFerguson said:
why wouldn't she borrow a million that she couldn't afford
Click to expand...
Because oldish 3 bedroom houses in a nice area was what she was quite happy to settle for, buy, and live in. And oldish 3 bedroom houses were not costing a million in rural areas , even in 2007.

LDFerguson said:
Part of my job was arranging mortgages and giving advice.
Click to expand...
Great, I hope you gave better advice that the banker who advised the nurse. However you did not answer the question. "Did you ever see any mortgages being sold at say 10 or 15 times the borrowers salary, and if so, did the banker who sold them ever expect them to be repaid, or did he know it would end in tears for the borrower? Decades of tears?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register