Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
DisplayNameChanged

Uk Sub Prime Found In Manchester

Recommended Posts

Sorry - I have already posted this on the news blog but I thought people would be interested.

I went out to buy petrol and couldn't believe my eyes at the paper on the till.

UK Sub prime article front page of the Manchester Evening News,

Care worker on £6k gets a £100k mortgage but walks free from court because the mortgage broker encouraged her to lie!

the web link:

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/new...r_mortgage.html

In the paper there is an editorial that I am not allow to write in full here so hopefully I can paraphase:-

"World financial havoc mirrored in Manchester. Lucky to walk free from court. institutions lend as much as possible to as many as possible. Bubbles, greed, deceit, bursting. Ordinary investors near the brunt, global scandal, effects for millions" etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Care worker on £6k gets a £100k mortgage but walks free from court because the mortgage broker encouraged her to lie!

the web link:

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/new...r_mortgage.html

This is interesting:

Ashcroft could now lose her home as prosecutors have launched a proceeds of crime case against her.

If a "proceeds of crime" case does what it says on the tin, could we see people who have fraudulently obtained mortgages losing their profits or equity? Maybe Dave and Jenny had better get in the habit of looking behind them :P

(Actually I'm serious: self-cert fraudsters should be whacked as hard as the law permits. They have driven the market up beyond reason, and dishonestly deprived law-abiding bidders of the chance to own a desired property).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry - I have already posted this on the news blog but I thought people would be interested.

I went out to buy petrol and couldn't believe my eyes at the paper on the till.

UK Sub prime article front page of the Manchester Evening News,

Care worker on £6k gets a £100k mortgage but walks free from court because the mortgage broker encouraged her to lie!

the web link:

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/new...r_mortgage.html

In the paper there is an editorial that I am not allow to write in full here so hopefully I can paraphase:-

"World financial havoc mirrored in Manchester. Lucky to walk free from court. institutions lend as much as possible to as many as possible. Bubbles, greed, deceit, bursting. Ordinary investors near the brunt, global scandal, effects for millions" etc...

Scary stuff. To be unbiased though, she is clearly a bit of a crook:

She also claimed she had no previous convictions. But she had a string of convictions for dishonesty, robbery and theft.

Most of the US sub-prime miss-selling is related to the mortgage brokers lying rather than the customers - their only crime was ignorance for the most part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/new...r_mortgage.html

During the case, the mortgage market in Britain was compared with the US `subprime' loan - a high interest loan for people with a poor credit history. Problems with people defaulting on subprime loans has led to a world-wide financial collapse this month

A bit loose ?

:lol:

Edited by Ash4781

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is interesting:

If a "proceeds of crime" case does what it says on the tin, could we see people who have fraudulently obtained mortgages losing their profits or equity? Maybe Dave and Jenny had better get in the habit of looking behind them :P

(Actually I'm serious: self-cert fraudsters should be whacked as hard as the law permits. They have driven the market up beyond reason, and dishonestly deprived law-abiding bidders of the chance to own a desired property).

Read the article in the MEN - it's an interesting case study.

There's going to be an interesting argument at all political levels over the coming months about just where the responsibility lies.

Should the borrower who has lied be punished?

Should the lender who encouraged this be punished?

Should the lender get bailed out by a central bank to stem their losses?

Should the borrower who has over-stretched themselves get benefits or other support to help through troubled times?

Or should it all be left alone and we hope that it 'comes out in the wash'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read the article in the MEN - it's an interesting case study.

There's going to be an interesting argument at all political levels over the coming months about just where the responsibility lies.

Should the borrower who has lied be punished?

Should the lender who encouraged this be punished?

Should the lender get bailed out by a central bank to stem their losses?

Should the borrower who has over-stretched themselves get benefits or other support to help through troubled times?

Or should it all be left alone and we hope that it 'comes out in the wash'?

Should the govenrment who knowingly let house prices continue to rise in 2001-2 be punished?

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Article comments:

Just out of interest, exactly how is a person on low income with possibly poor credit supposed secure any type of accommodation, let alone a mortgate without telling some sort of lie/omission? Credit is not only checked as standard if you are applying for a mortgage, it is now increasingly checked by estate agents and private landlords which is ruling out even letting a property to people with a compromised credit history or low income. That is unless they put down several months rent up front, a massive deposit or provide a guarantor. What is happening to those people who are slipping through the net, who are unable to provide the above? Now that councils are increasingly selling off their stock of homes and the demand for social housing is far higher than supply, what kind of society are we, criminalising those who have to be untruthful in order to secure a roof over their heads?!

Fiona

23/08/2007 at 12:12

These sort of comments are killing me. Just use good old tearjerking "poor and innocent" argument to justify crime, robbery and theft.

People are assuming they have the full right to own a house even if they are broke.

Huge dummy spit. Where's me haaaaause??? Gimmeee!!! Aaaaahhhh!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bart of Darkness
Care worker on £6k gets a £100k mortgage but walks free from court because the mortgage broker encouraged her to lie!

Good news for her, bad news for the broker. All the other mortgage brokers who've indulged in this kind of fraud must be losing sleep over this by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(Actually I'm serious: self-cert fraudsters should be whacked as hard as the law permits. They have driven the market up beyond reason, and dishonestly deprived law-abiding bidders of the chance to own a desired property).

If a person can borrow £100k on £6k pa then the whacked should be the lender. The Lenders are more responsible for driving up the market beyond reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should the borrower who has lied be punished?

Clearly not, according to this case. I thinks it's provided a clear answer to your question.

Fraudsters will be greatly encouraged by this decision. Not only did she defraud the bank, she claimed benefits to pay off the interest payments AND she is a persistent offender with previous for dishonesty.

Yet another p1sspoor sentencing decision by a weak Judge.

How is this sort of sentence supposed to act as a deterrent to others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If a person can borrow £100k on £6k pa then the whacked should be the lender. The Lenders are more responsible for driving up the market beyond reason.

Couldn't agree more. The onus is on the lender to properly screen applicants. If they can't be bothered because they're too greedy, they should shoulder all the blame. Anybody who saw the way the market was going 5 years ago would have done the same. I'm suprised they even prosecuted in this case. Banks are normally reluctant to get the bad publicity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Article comments:

These sort of comments are killing me. Just use good old tearjerking "poor and innocent" argument to justify crime, robbery and theft.

People are assuming they have the full right to own a house even if they are broke.

Huge dummy spit. Where's me haaaaause??? Gimmeee!!! Aaaaahhhh!!!

Disgusting isnt it.

A recidivist crook wants a house she can't afford.

.

With a history of crimes of dishonesty how does someone get a job as a carer?

Let alone kid themslves that they "deserve" a 100K house?

.

ST

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A big hearty thanks to the op for digging this up. We are all well aware that the market has been whipped and push to where it is right now. House prices have increased well beyond incomes (of all levels) and inevitable when faced with the decision of find a roof over your head, the majority of us will leave morality aside and do what is need to get on the property ladder.

It seems pretty clear that this woman, who has alledgedly lied on her mortgage application must have gone throught the sub prime route in order to obtain her property. She would have been asked a series of questions which would decide whether or not the mortgage company lend her the money. That fact that the company chose not to check or validate the information shows irresponsible lending.

Lets call a spade a spade here.

The woman should not have lied in order to obtain the mortgage.

The lenders should have checked to ensure that the person who was lending a large sum of money to could afford the repayments.

The issue I have a problem with is that this woman used tax payers money, yours and mine, to finance her greed by using our money to pay the interest. This is completly unacceptable. Money take from our taxes to support our benefits system is there to help genuinely misfortunate people, whenever somebody behaves in this way the amount of money left in the pot decreases. She not only stole money from you and me, but also from the genuinely misfortunate such as the disabled, the genuinly unemployed and those who have no choice but to claim state benefit.

If I was the judge, my judgement would be :

a) That the house be sold at market value.

B) That the woman be forced to repay all of the money she stole at an interest of 8% and face a further fine for the fraud involved.

c) That the mortgage brokers be brought to trial for obtaining money by deception also as they have taken a commision based on a knowingly fraudulent application.

d) That the lender be fined for irresponsible lending and that their FSA licence be suspended pending supervision by the FSA that they have improved their lending practices.

We all know that lenders are irresponsible and that some brokers are encoraging fraud and that buyers are clearly lying by taking on mortgages they cannot afford, the question is what are we going to do about it.

If the answer is nothing and it seems to be, then the Bank of England should not intervene if the market subsequently goes sour as it deserves to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clearly not, according to this case. I thinks it's provided a clear answer to your question.

Fraudsters will be greatly encouraged by this decision. Not only did she defraud the bank, she claimed benefits to pay off the interest payments AND she is a persistent offender with previous for dishonesty.

Yet another p1sspoor sentencing decision by a weak Judge.

How is this sort of sentence supposed to act as a deterrent to others?

...she was prosecuted separately for defrauding on benefits. However the court was wrong not to throw the book at her and go after the brokers also. The losers with this precedent will be the lenders who are fools anyway....... :P:lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A big hearty thanks to the op for digging this up. We are all well aware that the market has been whipped and push to where it is right now. House prices have increased well beyond incomes (of all levels) and inevitable when faced with the decision of find a roof over your head, the majority of us will leave morality aside and do what is need to get on the property ladder.

It seems pretty clear that this woman, who has alledgedly lied on her mortgage application must have gone throught the sub prime route in order to obtain her property. She would have been asked a series of questions which would decide whether or not the mortgage company lend her the money. That fact that the company chose not to check or validate the information shows irresponsible lending.

Lets call a spade a spade here.

The woman should not have lied in order to obtain the mortgage.

The lenders should have checked to ensure that the person who was lending a large sum of money to could afford the repayments.

The issue I have a problem with is that this woman used tax payers money, yours and mine, to finance her greed by using our money to pay the interest. This is completly unacceptable. Money take from our taxes to support our benefits system is there to help genuinely misfortunate people, whenever somebody behaves in this way the amount of money left in the pot decreases. She not only stole money from you and me, but also from the genuinely misfortunate such as the disabled, the genuinly unemployed and those who have no choice but to claim state benefit.

If I was the judge, my judgement would be :

a) That the house be sold at market value.

B) That the woman be forced to repay all of the money she stole at an interest of 8% and face a further fine for the fraud involved.

c) That the mortgage brokers be brought to trial for obtaining money by deception also as they have taken a commision based on a knowingly fraudulent application.

d) That the lender be fined for irresponsible lending and that their FSA licence be suspended pending supervision by the FSA that they have improved their lending practices.

We all know that lenders are irresponsible and that some brokers are encoraging fraud and that buyers are clearly lying by taking on mortgages they cannot afford, the question is what are we going to do about it.

If the answer is nothing and it seems to be, then the Bank of England should not intervene if the market subsequently goes sour as it deserves to do.

I'm glad to say that I believe Mervin King has no intention fo bailing people out.

To do so would reduce the chance of the masses learning for next time. If fecklessness is rewarded then responsibility is punished, and that would just make us all, literally, poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Credit is not only checked as standard if you are applying for a mortgage, it is now increasingly checked by estate agents and private landlords ... unless they put down several months rent up front, a massive deposit or provide a guarantor.

Today I said "yes" to a flat to rent.

And I started the paperwork to get it.

I don't work - sold my house, so not signing on.

So "private means"

And I do have a few quid coming in from online. Probably equivalent to minimum wage as I don't actually "work" it, the money just plops into my account by magic.

I could actually buy 3 of these flats cash outright in fact if I wanted.

So, I spoke to the agent and explained "wealthy bint ... cash up front guv?"

For a 6 month tenancy, not only do I have to pay the full 6 months and all fees fully up front.

But I ALSO have to provide a guarantor.

And on the Guarantor Form they want to know the ins and outs of a gnat's whatsit. He's got to provide all manner of personal information to the agent ... it's gonna cost me about 6 beers and a curry!

My guarantor is 2 years into a 4x salary IO mortgage ... pfft... some guarantee HE would be in reality. He's only doing it as he knows he won't be needed.

Edited by ScaredEitherWay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm glad to say that I believe Mervin King has no intention fo bailing people out.

To do so would reduce the chance of the masses learning for next time. If fecklessness is rewarded then responsibility is punished, and that would just make us all, literally, poor.

....there is no one to bail out here in a financial sense ....this was fraud against you, me and everyone else...?...and she should have been sent to jail...!..and the mortgage brokers if proven they are persuading people to lie should be in court...where is the justice when judges do not apply the law.......?....are they simple in the mind....?.... :ph34r::ph34r::ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....there is no one to bail out here in a financial sense ....this was fraud against you, me and everyone else...?...and she should have been sent to jail...!..and the mortgage brokers if proven they are persuading people to lie should be in court...where is the justice when judges do not apply the law.......?....are they simple in the mind....?.... :ph34r::ph34r::ph34r:

I think they know that there isn't room in jail for all the mortgage fraudsters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If a person can borrow £100k on £6k pa then the whacked should be the lender. The Lenders are more responsible for driving up the market beyond reason.

The only way for a lender to avoid self-cert fraudsters would be to withdraw all self-cert mortgages, which would hardly be fair on those who legitimately need the products. If you can gain money by knowingly signing a false statement, or by advising someone to do same, and get away while passing the buck to the person from whom you gained the money ... then I don't know what the world is coming to.

(and yes, it looks like I don't know what the world is coming to).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only way for a lender to avoid self-cert fraudsters would be to withdraw all self-cert mortgages, which would hardly be fair on those who legitimately need the products. If you can gain money by knowingly signing a false statement, or by advising someone to do same, and get away while passing the buck to the person from whom you gained the money ... then I don't know what the world is coming to.

(and yes, it looks like I don't know what the world is coming to).

....I can see what you are getting at....on a project analysis basis we know the lenders are no 'angels' , the brokers are suspect, the applicant has committed fraud .......and the judge...well ....this was where we were due to get back on course...but NO!......!...another brick falls from the wall which makes up the fabric of our society....the judge joins the mighty circle with what......??....... :ph34r::ph34r::ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only way for a lender to avoid self-cert fraudsters would be to withdraw all self-cert mortgages, which would hardly be fair on those who legitimately need the products. If you can gain money by knowingly signing a false statement, or by advising someone to do same, and get away while passing the buck to the person from whom you gained the money ... then I don't know what the world is coming to.

(and yes, it looks like I don't know what the world is coming to).

I think that when the free market world gets this out of whack, then the responsibility is borne by all and sundry, we have a big big recession and with a bit of luck come out the other side.

not nice, but if as you say blame can not be cast and costs can not be borne by those responsible then the t*rd's already on it's way to the air circulator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that when the free market world gets this out of whack, then the responsibility is borne by all and sundry, we have a big big recession and with a bit of luck come out the other side.

not nice, but if as you say blame can not be cast and costs can not be borne by those responsible then the t*rd's already on it's way to the air circulator

....yep the Yankee fund managers spread the virus worm when they wrapped up the poisonous parcels on Wall Street... and all those smart Bankers all around the world fell for it....what a Sting..! ..where were the credit rating agencies .....asleep on their watch....? :P:lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The woman should not have lied in order to obtain the mortgage.

The lenders should have checked to ensure that the person who was lending a large sum of money to could afford the repayments.

The issue I have a problem with is that this woman used tax payers money, yours and mine, to finance her greed by using our money to pay the interest. This is completly unacceptable. Money take from our taxes to support our benefits system is there to help genuinely misfortunate people, whenever somebody behaves in this way the amount of money left in the pot decreases. She not only stole money from you and me, but also from the genuinely misfortunate such as the disabled, the genuinly unemployed and those who have no choice but to claim state benefit.

Very well said Sir!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry - I have already posted this on the news blog but I thought people would be interested.

I went out to buy petrol and couldn't believe my eyes at the paper on the till.

UK Sub prime article front page of the Manchester Evening News,

Care worker on £6k gets a £100k mortgage but walks free from court because the mortgage broker encouraged her to lie!

the web link:

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/new...r_mortgage.html

In the paper there is an editorial that I am not allow to write in full here so hopefully I can paraphase:-

"World financial havoc mirrored in Manchester. Lucky to walk free from court. institutions lend as much as possible to as many as possible. Bubbles, greed, deceit, bursting. Ordinary investors near the brunt, global scandal, effects for millions" etc...

A spokesman for GMAC said: "18 times salary is affordable if you manage your household budget effectively. We have seen considerable success with these products and will continue to offer them."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 350 The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.