Mortgage through BrokerBroker mortgage
Bailey Financials works for you to explore the mortgage markets to find the mortgage products that are right for you and establish a long-term relationships. These are many phases of your mortgage lifetime and we are looking to evaluate your affordable price during each individual to make sure that you have the right mortgage for you.
We will do this as a regulatory body of consultants: Our advice covers three kinds of mortgages: - Housing; - Buy for rent; We provide advice on three major kinds of protective insurance:
The case histories below show some recent grievances submitted to us with the involvement of mortgagebrokers. On the whole, such cases cover very similar topics to those we see in mortgage complaint, which include counseling, fees and administration work. If something goes amiss with a mortgage brokered by an agent, the consumer may sometimes be puzzled as to whether the creditor or broker is responsible for the inconvenience.
In consultation with a mortgage broker, Mrs. J. took out a mortgage that provided a fix interest for two years. Shortly after the end of the interest fixing term she returned to visit the broker. Upon the broker's advice, Ms J. consented to take out a mortgage providing a two-year tracking business. The interest rates on such loans are usually directly tied to the Bank of England's key interest rates and rise (or fall) immediately - as soon as the Bank of England has announced a modification.
After a few working days, Mrs. J. approached the broker to say that she had altered her opinion and would rather be certain of a mortgage with a set interest rat. And the realtor consented to set this up for her. A few week later, when Mrs. J. called him to find out what was going on, the realtor had to confess that he had been too slow to leave to comply with her plea.
Your request for the trackers mortgage had been approved by the creditor and the new mortgage regime was already in place. In a relatively brief time, after Mrs. J. had switched to the new mortgage, the Bank of England raised interest rate several numbers of time - so there had been immediate, corresponding increases in Mrs. J.'s redemptions.
Mrs. J. lodged a complaint with the estate agent and asked him to reimburse her. Said that due to his supervision she now had "the false kind of mortgage" and could not finance the refunds. Said that the broker should also indemnify her for the fact that she was not able to continue with the acquisition of a new apartment.
Thats because of the very high costs of the mortgage repayments she had to make now. As the realtor rejected her application, Mrs. J. presented her appeal to us. If the broker had processed her application immediately, we found that he could have obtained a fixed-rate mortgage for Mrs J. without difficulty.
Accepting that the higher costs of her mortgage means that she has missed the chance to buy the particular home she wanted. We were not convinced, however, that the broker should be held responsible. Only one re-mortgage was arranged at a time by the agent and he could not reasonably have realized that this could also involve a sale of the real estate separately.
She said that the broker should compensate Mrs. J. to make up the gap between what she would have been paying if she had had had the mortgage she had asked for and the amount she would probably have to spend in the same amount of time with the mortgage. And we said that the broker should also compensate Mrs. J. 250 pounds for the hardship and discomfort his mistake had made her.
Following the visit of a mortgage broker, Mr and Mrs C. received a mortgage which provided interest at a preferential interest for the first two years. Toward the end of the two-year term, the broker made a date to see them again to talk about their mortgage-option. When the two-year agreement came to an end, he explained to the pair that the interest on their mortgage would rise and they would then have to repay the lending agency's default interest rates.
He said that it would be better for them to take out a new mortgage with another creditor. Mr and Mrs C have resumed the mortgage on the broker's advice. A few month later, however, they found that if they had remained with the initial creditor, the interest would not have risen in the way they had been supposed to.
However, the estate agent declined to bear the cost that the pair had been incurring as a consequence of an unnecessary debt rescheduling. Then we found out that the broker had deceived Mr. and Mrs. C.. Before he recommended what he had said to them was a more "fitting" transaction, he should have done a reasonable check on the conditions of their current mortgage.
Therefore they contacted a broker. They gave the broker detail about their mortgage, but said they were not sure whether their current borrower would let them repay a prepayment penalty if they switched to another mortgage at this time. Brokers committed themselves to checking this before they could proceed with the debt rescheduling.
Both Mr. and Mrs. D. were very angry when they realized in due course that they had received a prepayment penalty for their old mortgage. You said that if the broker had verified things correctly as he had said he would, they would have moved the re-mortgage to the end of the prepayment time.
In our view, it was likely that Mr and Mrs D. wanted to prevent payment of the early redemption penalty as far as possible - and would therefore have wanted to defer rescheduling. So we said that the estate agent should compensate Mr. and Mrs. D. We charged the amount he should have paid taking into consideration what the pair had won - and what they had missed - because they had not checked the prepayment fee before arranging a re-mortgage.
As we said, the broker should also give Mr. and Mrs. D. an amount that reflects the discomfort they have experienced. By rescheduling his debt, Mr. K. wanted to find means, and he asked a broker to do this for him. Following Mr. K.'s valuation of the building, the future creditor came to the conclusion that the real estate was not as valuable as Mr. K. had thought.
Although the creditor made an offering - which Mr K. took up - it was for less than Mr K. needed. Soon after the re-mortgage was established, Mr K. requested more funds from the same creditor. Nevertheless, the creditor said that he would not consider an appeal for further financing for at least six month.
This resulted in a considerable early redemption fee for the first re-mortgage. Then Mr. K. lodged a complaint with the broker and said that he wanted indemnification for the costs of establishing the second re-mortgage and for the prepayment fee. Mr. K. came to us when the broker declined to make the payment.
K. said that the broker had emboldened him to take the re-mortgage, although the amount he was given was much less than he had wished. In Mr K.'s view, the broker had reassured him that Mr K. could request more cash immediately after the establishment of the reverse mortgage and would have no difficulties getting it.
He had kept good notes on the mortgage consultation which he had given to Mr K., and we did not find anything in the audit of those notes to suggest that Mr K. had requested or obtained an undertaking as to the availability of further funding. A number of discrepancies were found in the presentation of Mr K's incidents. He could not support his allegations that the broker had deceived him.
We did not reach an agreement, however, that the broker should refund these expenses to him. Mister F. approached an estate agent for help in the arrangement of a re-mortgage. Mr. F. told the estate agent that the building of his home was relatively uncommon. The broker, however, did not seem to believe that there was a matter and he properly tabled Mr F.'s request.
Having contacted Mr F. to ask a number of specific queries about the building of his home, the creditor rejected his request. He said that the agent must have been conscious from the start that the creditor would not grant loans for non-standard buildings.
Mr F. was complaining that the broker should never have been allowed to process the request and should have levied an administrative charge. It was our belief that the broker had placed the app adequately. It had been sent to a creditor who ordinarily took on mortgage requests for many non-standardised real estate. Issues raised by Mr F., the creditor, concerned specific issues.
This was not a detail that could reasonably be anticipated to be requested or decided by the Broker prior to the handling of the request. Mr President, we did not accept with Mr F. that the broker should have recognised that this particular request was forfeit.