plummet expert Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 How can we make HMRC backdate their investigations into Mortgage Fraud? Who can make them do that? Why arent they doing that? Is it because Crime didnt exist before September 1st 2011? Is Crime a new phenomena? Do people who committed Crime before this date get a pass? The FSA have announced that 45% of all loans, were liar loans. James Crosby was a non exec director, then deputy chairman at the FSA. He also had a position at the treasury, and under Crosby at HBOS, Liar Loans, mortgage fraud, was endemic. He was knighted by Brown and retired with a pension worth over ten million pounds. The BOE, and the MPC knew mass mortgage fraud was taking place. The BBC were reporting it, then quashed it. Politicians were profiting from it, in a secret expenses system. Its The Establishment, who are the Criminals. The Terrorists. Its the Establishment who need to be arrested and charged. They are far far worse than the 'feral rioters.' This country makes me physically sick. I seem to recall that Lord Mandelson wrote a load of rubbish down on a mortgage application about 12 years ago and when caught out temporarily lost his ministerial post. No fraud investigation, no proper firing, then back as aminister and later off to Brussels to talk about trade and get a very big unearned pension. Now that is disgusting! There should be no liar loans and income multiples should be fixed by law. That way prices would adjust to levels which match affordability in the long term and prevent booms in ATM remortgaging which damages our productive economy. High house prices are bad, but newspapers have not yet thought of that have they. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaspers Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Wouldnt abandoning SMI be a better solution? SMI will continue. Will a conservative government be interested in checking claims for mortgage fraud as much as they are interested in checking disability claims for fraud? I think that is a powerful argument. If they claim to be the party cutting down on benefit fraud and ignore SMI fraud what does that say? To me it says "we're prepared to allow fraud to avoid repossessions, to avoid Mark to Market, to avoid the scale of deception to be shown" They would be complicit in the fraud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 That could be the real story here. As I have never had a mortgage are incomes checked/asked for when it comes to a remortgage? Yes, as far as I know if they want to change lender or move house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cells Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Yes, as far as I know if they want to change lender or move house. This is true, someone i know said it was the first time they had been asked for their wage slip but just to be taken to the bank and photocopied. i suppose you could print a convincing fake, i bet the bank just wants on record that they checked so in the unlikely case that you or some customer tries to sue them for selling them a product they couldnt afford they can go back to said photocopy and say....but you said you earned this much and hence could afford it! BTW it would impact re-mortgages but most people who come to an end of their deal period will probably be going onto a SVR that was lower than their deal however they will probably not be getting the best rate they could do if their income was higher. that is to say this will definitly help bank profits, keeping liar loans on SVR at 4% instead of competitive 2.5% deals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadtoruin Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 I seem to recall that Lord Mandelson wrote a load of rubbish down on a mortgage application about 12 years ago and when caught out temporarily lost his ministerial post. No fraud investigation, no proper firing, then back as aminister and later off to Brussels to talk about trade and get a very big unearned pension. Now that is disgusting! There should be no liar loans and income multiples should be fixed by law. That way prices would adjust to levels which match affordability in the long term and prevent booms in ATM remortgaging which damages our productive economy. High house prices are bad, but newspapers have not yet thought of that have they. You wouldn't even need to be particularly restrictive to achieve those ends. Just have a scheme whereby a mortgage application (income) was validated by the HMRC and applicants employer as truthful and within a certain multiple (say 4 times annual). Only if the mortgage was thus validated could any relief be given down the line in the event of unemployment etc. A non-validated mortgage (unchecked, high multiple) would be legal but all risk to be carried by the lender. Unemployed - no payment from public purse, and if defaulting the lender can only reclaim the property, not the sum leant, the borrower can just do jingle mail at any time. Result would be high multiples would be severely restricted to genuine appropriate cases where the lender would factor the additional risk into the IR. No risk to the taxpayer from imprudent borrowing going wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric pebble Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 (edited) The Mortgage Verification Scheme started on September 1st and has not been publicised so that people aren't aware of the new rules and can be caught out if they lie about their income. This then results in a full tax investigation. Better tell everyone you know and post it on any newspaper articles, forums etc. - we want to stop liar loans do we? Yet another case of - The horse bolted YEARS ago - and is now dog turds having once been canned dog food..... & the barn door is swinging in the wind, hanging on one hinge where there was a once a stable - but which is now a Grade II listed ruin.... . Edited September 19, 2011 by eric pebble Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric pebble Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 (edited) It's a costly business now telling lies about your income. Yup - and it cost much of the world trillions in the form of a 'World Recession'.... [see all below - and type "liar loans" into Google - and trawl around..... and weep.... ] . Edited September 19, 2011 by eric pebble Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Yet another case of - The horse bolted YEARS ago - and is now dog turds having once been canned dog food..... & the barn door is swinging in the wind, hanging on one hinge where there was a once a stable - but which is now a Grade II listed ruin.... . Poetic and beautiful! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MongerOfDoom Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 How can we make HMRC backdate their investigations into Mortgage Fraud? Just what would be the point? The only cases they are interested in are where people *understate* their income. This would be implied by them making mortgage repayments in excess of their taxed income. There is no inherent reason why liar loans should fall in that category, and it's not like a tax investigation is going to discover anything if all you have is PAYE income. Having said that, the number of people I know who say they don't do a tax return despite clearly needing to pay HR tax on their investment income is astonishing, particularly since they seem to claim HMRC told them they need not bother because it's small. Perhaps the reason HMRC want the data is to look at the size of the deposit, and check that the income from that was fully taxed. What is instead needed is for the police to investigate the applications. It would be the most trivial thing to do these days when companies comply with their requests "voluntarily". Perhaps they will get round to it after checking that most cars in Bradford are insured, making sure there is no overwhelming evidence of fraud committed by people subletting their council housing, stopping drugs from getting into prisons, and getting all the paperwork in order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmarks Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Had the authorities done their jobs properly in the first place the finger of suspicion would not now be pointing at (just about) everyone. What a way to run a country. Despite our warnings they still went ahead and fooked up our country and the global economy big big time. The authorities should be on their knees, begging for mercy, apologizing to the nation Send the rioters to prison. Send the loan-liars to prison. But above all send the bankstaz to prison and their political accomplices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lepista Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 You wouldn't even need to be particularly restrictive to achieve those ends. Just have a scheme whereby a mortgage application (income) was validated by the HMRC and applicants employer as truthful and within a certain multiple (say 4 times annual). Only if the mortgage was thus validated could any relief be given down the line in the event of unemployment etc. A non-validated mortgage (unchecked, high multiple) would be legal but all risk to be carried by the lender. Unemployed - no payment from public purse, and if defaulting the lender can only reclaim the property, not the sum leant, the borrower can just do jingle mail at any time. Result would be high multiples would be severely restricted to genuine appropriate cases where the lender would factor the additional risk into the IR. No risk to the taxpayer from imprudent borrowing going wrong. All HMRC need to do is to base the persons income tax on the amount of income they say they get on their mortgage applications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milton Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 (edited) Just what would be the point? The only cases they are interested in are where people *understate* their income. What is instead needed is for the police to investigate the applications. ???!!! Yes. We are in agreement. And prosecutions should be brought against those borrowers and lenders, with examples made at Director levels. Maybe you would know better than I whose Jurisdiction these investigations would fall under......HMRC, or the Police, or the Fraud Squad...... Edited September 20, 2011 by Milton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.