Should bank have stress tested

Gobo Fraggle

I bought a property in 2008. I informed the bank I had only been in employment for 3 mths and had been unemployed for 1 year previous.The bank loaned myself almost 300k.This was not a sub prime loan.I lost my job 6 mths after loan was issued .

My question is should this loan have been issued and have I a case to fight against the bank for providing myself with finance with out been stress tested?

OldmanMondeo

No it never should have been. These type of loans is why we are fecked, presuming you are unable to pay it and are behind on payments.

But if you are looking for a way out of paying the loan, then remember, you went in knowing your situation as much as the bank.

Gobo Fraggle

OldmanMondeo wrote: »

No it never should have been. These type of loans is why we are fecked, presuming you are unable to pay it and are behind on payments.

But if you are looking for a way out of paying the loan, then remember, you went in knowing your situation as much as the bank.

I agree I went asking. I did not lie to them. I provided all truthful information.Expecting a NO.

If they said no. I would not have asked again.So they loaned money to someone they knew was high risk.Have they a case to answer to?

Milk & Honey

No case.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2011/0305/1224291372102.html

Gobo Fraggle

Milk & Honey wrote: »

No case.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2011/0305/1224291372102.html[/QUOTE]

Thank you for the link.

But I think a loan for a home is totally different than a loan for a project for a business venture and the fact that they loan money to make a profit. How did they expect to make a profit or get payment in full on a 3 mth work porfolio.

OldmanMondeo

OP, what are you hopping to do here?

1. Get off paying the mortgage and keep the house?
2. Get off paying and lose the house?
3. Get off paying?

From what I gather will happen, is if the bank take the house, they will sell and you will be liable for the difference, ie borrowed 300k, sells for 200k, balance 100k, you still owe.

cml387

Gobo Fraggle wrote: »

Milk & Honey wrote: »

No case.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2011/0305/1224291372102.html[/QUOTE]

Thank you for the link.

But I think a loan for a home is totally different than a loan for a project for a business venture and the fact that they loan money to make a profit. How did they expect to make a profit or get payment in full on a 3 mth work porfolio.

What exactly were you thinking when you applied for a loan?
Chancing your arm to see what would happen?

Gobo Fraggle

OldmanMondeo wrote: »

OP, what are you hopping to do here?

1. Get off paying the mortgage and keep the house?
2. Get off paying and lose the house?
3. Get off paying?

From what I gather will happen, is if the bank take the house, they will sell and you will be liable for the difference, ie borrowed 300k, sells for 200k, balance 100k, you still owe.

What I hope to achieve is.

The loan taken back. As it should not have been issued.That loan was used for a property. So they can have the property in exchange for the loan issued.

I know you will say. If the property increased in price. Would you be given them the profit.

but thats not the issue here. The issue is they loaned 300k to a person on a salary of 900 euro a week for 3 mths.
I knew if i kept my job. I repay them. They knew I was only in work for 3 mths at the time.So they knew this was high risk.

Gobo Fraggle

cml387 wrote: »

Gobo Fraggle wrote: »

What exactly were you thinking when you applied for a loan?
Chancing your arm to see what would happen?

i thought i would be declined. But they said yes. So I went along with it and hoped all would be ok.

it was easier than renting a place. The landlord would have asked for work references ect.So easier to buy was the option.

I thought at least they would have asked for a guarantor. But if they loan you money like that. Must be no rules.

If they have rules.Are they responsible for my situation ?
If i got a subprime loan I would have no issue .These loans where provided to high risk people.

Gobo Fraggle

If The bank issue a loan and they never made sure you could repay it. Have they sold a product. Under false circumstances?

Does anybody know a solicitor in dublin that might take this case on a no win no fee.

this has noting to do with job loses now or prices of properties now.

This is about asking the bank for 300k to buy a home and telling them I am only working 3 mths and them saying no problem.

Procrastastudy

I don't get the logic here - the Bank didn't (or at least it's unlikely) sell you the house. You made an offer to someone and they accepted it - the bank learnt you the money.

People lose their jobs &c. at the best of times - thats always a risk. A bank can't predict the future. At the moment there are various schemes to help people out and stay in their homes. I get the impression you are more annoyed about the massive negative equity you are now probably in.

If I'm wrong, then it's a case of working with the bank the best you can. They will do their best not to put you out.

If you do find legal counsel to work on this case do let me know I'd love to follow it but I suspect not even the most bonkers lawyer will go near this one on a no win no fee.

What I hope to achieve is.

The loan taken back. As it should not have been issued.That loan was used for a property. So they can have the property in exchange for the loan issued.

Interesting idea - are you proposing to pay them rent for the time you spent there?

Also please don't think I'm unsympathetic. I bought my apartment for 295K - One bed. It's now worth about 60 - 90K. I sunk €75k in as a deposit - still got over €200k to pay! My mortgage is around €600 a month - thats still cheaper than renting. When I'm finished paying for it it will at least be mine what ever the value - again better than renting. That said when I lose the TRS credit I'm not going to be a happy bunny but I'll still be paying around rental cost. (Substitute wife, wife's for me, mine &c.)

patwicklow

Them were the days when any one could borrow any amount of money off the bank,
Even the houses built up the road from me 5-6 bedrooms thrown up costing over 800k brand new jeep and car parked in the drive, some have even speed boats on trailers.
Go up there now to the same estate weeds growing up all around it so really cant see your case being any different.They put the bait out back then now there reeling it all back in was very well planned.

Gobo Fraggle

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I don't get the logic here - the Bank didn't (or at least it's unlikely) sell you the house. You made an offer to someone and they accepted it - the bank learnt you the money.

People lose their jobs &c. at the best of times - thats always a risk. A bank can't predict the future. At the moment there are various schemes to help people out and stay in their homes. I get the impression you are more annoyed about the massive negative equity you are now probably in.

If I'm wrong, then it's a case of working with the bank the best you can. They will do their best not to put you out.

If you do find legal counsel to work on this case do let me know I'd love to follow it but I suspect not even the most bonkers lawyer will go near this one on a no win no fee.





Interesting idea - are you proposing to pay them rent for the time you spent there?

Also please don't think I'm unsympathetic. I bought my apartment for 295K - One bed. It's now worth about 60 - 90K. I sunk €75k in as a deposit - still got over €200k to pay! My mortgage is around €600 a month - thats still cheaper than renting. When I'm finished paying for it it will at least be mine what ever the value - again better than renting. That said when I lose the TRS credit I'm not going to be a happy bunny but I'll still be paying around rental cost. (Substitute wife, wife's for me, mine &c.)

Your not seeing my point. At the time I was assessed for the loan on a 3 mth work porfolio.
Not that i could afford it then and not afford it now.

Basically could not afford it then and should not have be given it. Was there no laws about this back then.

FFS how did they recon i could afford a loan of that amount and just hand it out.I plead ignorance and they are the professionals.

Toal income provided to bank for 15 mths = approx 15k. Bank issues loan for 300k.

Procrastastudy

Gobo Fraggle wrote: »

Your not seeing my point. At the time I was assessed for the loan on a 3 mth work porfolio.
Not that i could afford it then and not afford it now.

Basically could not afford it then and should not have be given it. Was there no laws about this back then.

FFS how did they reckon i could afford a loan of that amount and just hand it out.

I'm afraid I'm not. If you wanted to buy (a good choice) and couldn't get a mortgage how would that have been fair? The bank would have looked at you and made a decision based on your future prospects, carried out a risk assessment and loaned on that policy. Now it's quite clear they were taking the p**s and we're all suffering for it now. Should certain people be working in salt mines for the rest of their lives? Of course but I don't really see what you are complaining about.

€900 a week! That was a good Salary! Why shouldn't they have loaned on that?! What bearing does the fact that you were only employed for 3 months have?

Gobo Fraggle

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I'm afraid I'm not. If you wanted to buy (a good choice) and couldn't get a mortgage how would that have been fair? The bank would have looked at you and made a decision based on your future prospects, carried out a risk assessment and loaned on that policy. Now it's quite clear they were taking the p**s and we're all suffering for it now. Should certain people be working in salt mines for the rest of their lives? Of course but I don't really see what you are complaining about.

€900 a week! That was a good Salary! Why shouldn't they have loaned on that?! What bearing does the fact that you were only employed for 3 months have?

Ok . I understand where your coming from. I may as well let it go.

I am doing alright to be honest. The rent a room scheme pays the mortgage.

However I know lads who lied to get a mortgage.I did not lie to them.
Basically them lads did not need to lie.They Just needed to ask the bank for what they wanted and tell them they hope to keep the job they just got a couple of weeks ago.

If a solictor took the case on a no win no fee. Id bring it to court.


I CAN SEE THE HEAD LINES
Man buys a shovel. Gets a job. works 3 mths. unemployed 1 year previous.

Gets a 300k loan from bank.

theteal

Gobo Fraggle wrote: »

FFS how did they recon i could afford a loan of that amount and just hand it out.I plead ignorance and they are the professionals.

so you thought you'd get a loan for €300k, spend it without a second thought knowing full well you couldn't afford it. . .and it's the bank's fault! Yes they should have more stringent checks but why would they not assume that a grown adult of sound mind would live up to the terms of the agreed contract. I can only assume that the bank (along with your good self) had the crazy impression that property was an ever appreciating asset and could be sold down the line for profit if required.

you actually want to plead ignorance when undertaking a €300k transaction?

There are responsible people in genuine distress at these times due to factors beyond their control and. . .nah, i'll stop, this thread is annoying me and i'll probably pick up a ban.

No, no solicitor in the land will take up this case for a no win no fee.

Gobo Fraggle

theteal wrote: »

so you thought you'd get a loan for €300k, spend it without a second thought knowing full well you couldn't afford it. . .and it's the bank's fault! Yes they should have more stringent checks but why would they not assume that a grown adult of sound mind would live up to the terms of the agreed contract. I can only assume that the bank (along with your good self) had the crazy impression that property was an ever appreciating asset and could be sold down the line for profit if required.

you actually want to plead ignorance when undertaking a €300k transaction?

There are responsible people in genuine distress at these times due to factors beyond their control and. . .nah, i'll stop, this thread is annoying me and i'll probably pick up a ban.

No, no solicitor in the land will take up this case for a no win no fee.

Yes plead ignorance. I went for advice and a possible loan. They provided 300k and asked for noting in return. No guarantee No deposit No SFA.

So yes I plead Ignorance.

robjones1981

The truth is if the OP got this mortgage from a Irish Bank then a stress test was applied to the case

The stress test would have been applied to all Residental Property Loans and would have conformed with the Banks standards as they were at that point in time

With everything we know now its pretty clear the parameters of the stress test(s) were in no way adequate to what has happened in the last number of years - however that is a different matter entirely from the bank or lending institution not applying a stress test in their underwriting process prior to the approval of the loan

cml387

Gobo Fraggle wrote: »

Yes plead ignorance. I went for advice and a possible loan. They provided 300k and asked for noting in return. No guarantee No deposit No SFA.

So yes I plead Ignorance.

Are you irish, OP?

Procrastastudy

Sorry I may have steered your thread off in to a hedge! It seems to have become more about bank lending policies than the legal question that was at the heart of you're original post.

The issue with contracts in general is that it is the common law position to stay out of the bargain parties make as much as possible. There are such a thing as unconscionablebargains but I doubt this falls into that category. The whole concept of free-market economy and contract law is something I'm only just beginning to read on but it's really interesting to be studying it in the modern context of it going so very badly wrong.

There may be regulations that were breeched in the loan you got but I seriously doubt it. Again it should be noted I know very little but the posts certainly seemed to indicate a non starter. The issues surrounding the deregulation of financial services is again very interesting but I can't give you an intelligent opinion on that (or anything else really!)

None of the issues that have been raised could really be fought from a single guy and his gaff point of view. If you do manage to get someone to take it on honestly please do PM me I'd love to follow it. Perhaps someone will have a more informed opinion and give you a pointer as to what could have been breeched - theoretically.

Gobo Fraggle

robjones1981 wrote: »

- however that is a different matter entirely from the bank or lending institution not applying a stress test in their underwriting process prior to the approval of the loan

And thats the point I am making.

Gobo Fraggle

cml387 wrote: »

Are you irish, OP?

Yes.

Procrastastudy

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1742683/ Too big to fail.

I know its a work of fiction but a really good watch.

The s**t bag mortgages lines really crack me up.

There's a good docu by Micheal Moore if thats your sort of thing too... about as balanced 20 stone girl in high heels but does give some insight into the Regan administration.

Gobo Fraggle

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1742683/ Too big to fail.

I know its a work of fiction but a really good watch.

The s**t bag mortgages lines really crack me up.

There's a good docu by Micheal Moore if thats your sort of thing too... about as balanced 20 stone girl in high heels but does give some insight into the Regan administration.

Ill have a look at that.Thanks.

The other point in relation to this loan is. I suffer from bipolar and make rash decisions. If they even asked for a medical.To prove I was in a right state of mind to take their loan. This would have been another factor for refusal.

amdublin

Gobo Fraggle wrote: »

Yes plead ignorance. I went for advice and a possible loan. They provided 300k and asked for noting in return. No guarantee No deposit No SFA.

So yes I plead Ignorance.

They sent you a loan offer?

Which you signed to accept the terms and conditions (I.e. that you would pay back the loan) in the presence of solicitor.

And now you are saying you were ignorant to the fact you'd have to pay this back

Really? REALLY???!!!!

Come on op!!! :pac:

littlemac1980

Did they not insist on you taking a medical when you told them you were Bi-Polar?

OldmanMondeo

Personally I don't think you have a case. Taking out a mortgage is not a quick decision for either side. My wife works in a bank and we had problems getting half that mortgage with both of us in long term full time employment. The paperwork would not allow the bank just to give the money out willy nilly.

TBH and trying not been judgemental, you took out the loan, pay it back. The problem is to many people think the bank just write off the balance, they don't, you end up paying it, as well as the taxpayers. Interest rates will go up and other mortgage holders will end up paying.

Gobo Fraggle

amdublin wrote: »

They sent you a loan offer?

Which you signed to accept the terms and conditions (I.e. At you would pay back the loan) in the presence of solicitor.

And now you are saying you were ignorant to the fact you'd have to pay this back

Really? REALLY???!!!!

Come on op!!! :pac:

I did not want to mention the medical condition.

However yes. I plead Ignorance.I made a rash decision possibly due to my medical condition.However the decision should never have been mine on the information I provided them.They are the professionals lending money.

If I was in constant employment and had criteria to back up the loan or lied to them. I would have no issues.

However they loaned myself 300k on the criteria of 3 mths in employment.

Gobo Fraggle

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Did they not insist on you taking a medical when you told them you were Bi-Polar?

They never asked. Thats another point I am making. Was there no regulation on a persons health grounds or work criteria back then.

OldmanMondeo

Gobo Fraggle wrote: »

I did not want to mention the medical condition.

The ask on the application forms if your in good health, you usually need life cover. It is sounding like the bank have more a case against you.

amdublin

Gobo Fraggle wrote: »

I did not want to mention the medical condition.

However yes. I plead Ignorance.I made a rash decision possibly due to my medical condition.However the decision should never have been mine on the information I provided them.They are the professionals lending money.

If I was in constant employment and had criteria to back up the loan or lied to them. I would have no issues.

However they loaned myself 300k on the criteria of 3 mths in employment.

Over what period did you make this rash decision? Was it rash when you made the offer to buy the house? Rash when you went to the bank for the loan? Rash when you were in the solicitors office?

I assume this was during a manic episode? Could a doctor attest to this?

Are you going to continue your life making decisions and afterwards changing your mind and blaming them on your illness?

Gobo Fraggle

OldmanMondeo wrote: »

Personally I don't think you have a case. Taking out a mortgage is not a quick decision for either side. My wife works in a bank and we had problems getting half that mortgage with both of us in long term full time employment. The paperwork would not allow the bank just to give the money out willy nilly.

TBH and trying not been judgemental, you took out the loan, pay it back. The problem is to many people think the bank just write off the balance, they don't, you end up paying it, as well as the taxpayers. Interest rates will go up and other mortgage holders will end up paying.

They asked me to get payslips from the employer and a letter stating my role within company. Thats all I gave them.

I am paying back the loan at present. However my point is they should never have given it to me and I think a judge been a referee would make the same decision on all the info i supplied.

So if they should not have given it to me. When/if it comes to pay it and i cant, they can pay it for me.

amdublin

Gobo Fraggle wrote: »

They asked me to get payslips from the employer and a letter stating my role within company. Thats all I gave them.

I am paying back the loan at present. However my point is they should never have given it to me and I think a judge been a referee would make the same decision on all the info i supplied.

So if they should not have given it to me. When/if it comes to pay it and i cant, they can pay it for me.

What age are you Gobo Fraggle?

You entered into a contract.
You first come on here trying to wriggle it out of it saying the bank should never have given it to you because you were only working 3 months.
You are now trying to wriggle out of it saying the bank should not have given it to you because you are bipolar.

When are you going to grow up and and take responsibility for YOUR actions?

Gobo Fraggle

OldmanMondeo wrote: »

The ask on the application forms if your in good health, you usually need life cover. It is sounding like the bank have more a case against you.

I called 123.ie. Took life cover out over term of loan.No questions asked about bipolar.I dont think I even filled in any forms to be honest.

littlemac1980

Just start referring to yourself as Gobo of the family Fraggle.

Gobo Fraggle

amdublin wrote: »

Over what period did you make this rash decision? Was it rash when you made the offer to buy the house? Rash when you went to the bank for the loan? Rash when you were in the solicitors office?

I assume this was during a manic episode? Could a doctor attest to this?

Are you going to continue your life making decisions and afterwards changing your mind and blaming them on your illness?

All happened so quick. Id say 2 weeks from seeing house and getting loan.

I could have a doctor confirm I suffer from bipolar and this may have been a manic episode.

I cant blame everything on my illness when things go against me. However do banks not have to own up to any responsibility here.

OldmanMondeo

Good luck with it Gobo, but I don't think you have a case.

Gobo Fraggle

Gobo Fraggle wrote: »

I CAN SEE THE HEAD LINES
Man buys a shovel. Gets a job. works 3 mths. unemployed 1 year previous.

Gets a 300k loan from bank.

"Simpleton Loaned 300k, Blames Bank." has an better ring to it

Phoenix Park

3 pages Mr Troll, fair play.

Gobo Fraggle

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Just start referring to yourself as Gobo of the family Fraggle.

yes Gobo is easy going and friendly. Thats why.No other reason.

Gobo Fraggle

[QUOTE=Rojomcdojo;77052839]"Simpleton in the bank Loaned 300k, " has an better ring to it [/QUOTE]


FFS : to get to the position of loaning banks money.

Should you not at least check that employment and salary match the loan.

Gobo Fraggle

Gobo Fraggle wrote: »

FFS : to get to the position of loaning banks money.

Should you not at least check that employment and salary match the loan.

Might you not also want to check this, yourself like?

avalon68

While banks may have been a bit loose with lending practices - their primary aim is to turn a profit.....you took the loan and spent it. If the house doubled in value you would have no problems with their lending practices. stop trying to wriggle out of it now. Personal responsibility! Two words a lot of people should come to terms with :cool:

amdublin

I'm out!

I don't want to be responsible for anything thst happens to you in the future eg. "well I was in a middle of an episode and I chatted with this person called amdublin on the Internet and after that I made a rash discussion and I think this person should be held responsible for what I did"

Goodbye :cool:

Gobo Fraggle

Phoenix Park wrote: »

3 pages Mr Troll, fair play.

Make that 4. But its not a troll.

Its the quetion of legality of a loan.

dats_right

OP, if you are a too able to work but somehow unable to appreciate simple legal contracts? Let's look at it from the other side of it, if the bank told you that they could not lend to you because they couldn't be sure you have the capacity to understand what you are signing; or say you weren't allowed a credit card, a store card, a bank account, a gym membership, a post-pay mobile phone contract, hire-purchase on a car, a lease on a house, all because you seemingly don't understand what you are signing up to during one of your "episodes", how would you feel about that?

thebiglad

Gobo Fraggle wrote: »

cml387 wrote: »

it was easier than renting a place. The landlord would have asked for work references ect.So easier to buy was the option.

Just how long did this house purchase take, quicker to buy a house than to sort out references for rental?

StillWaters

Gobo Fraggle wrote: »

OldmanMondeo wrote: »

The ask on the application forms if your in good health, you usually need life cover. It is sounding like the bank have more a case against you.

I called 123.ie. Took life cover out over term of loan.No questions asked about bipolar.I dont think I even filled in any forms to be honest.

Im sorry, but that is nonsense. You had to fill in a form, either paper or online, stating age, gender, whether you have any physical or mental health problems.

You lied on the form, and your life insurance is invalid.

Unlike your mortgage which remains valid. You passed the criteria of the day to get the mortgage, hAd legal counsel and entered into the loan agreement.

You could try suing the financial regulator instead?

Gobo Fraggle

http://www.thejournal.ie/wanted-unhappy-homeowners-to-sue-the-state-banks-and-the-financial-regulators-2011-03/

A link for those , who may think this is beyond believe.


I also spoke with a couple of solicitors today. One solicitor has agreed to take the case on a no win no fee basis.
However he just wants to look into the details I provided first.

He states , if what i am telling him is the truth. I have a good case.

Gobo Fraggle

thebiglad wrote: »

Gobo Fraggle wrote: »

Just how long did this house purchase take, quicker to buy a house than to sort out references for rental?

Yes quicker to buy the house. I had no work references to give a landlord, other than i just got a job a couple of mths ago and i am still tech on trial and i had been declined by landlords due to no references from employers or previous landlords.



I just moved from the nest straight into a house with a loan provided with out a risk assessment.

Gobo Fraggle

StillWaters wrote: »

Im sorry, but that is nonsense. You had to fill in a form, either paper or online, stating age, gender, whether you have any physical or mental health problems.

You lied on the form, and your life insurance is invalid.

Unlike your mortgage which remains valid. You passed the criteria of the day to get the mortgage, hAd legal counsel and entered into the loan agreement.

You could try suing the financial regulator instead?

nonsense my hole.I only took out life cover. If i die they pay of the loan.