Concerning the collapse of B&B, whose collapse the BBC News said today was 
'partially caused by the slowdown in mortgage replayments by buy-to-let 
mortgage-holders', could those who lied on self-cert motgages find 
themselves facing criminal charges?

-- 
The best answer to feminism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scold%27s_bridle

> Concerning the collapse of B&B, whose collapse the BBC News said today was 
> 'partially caused by the slowdown in mortgage replayments by buy-to-let 
> mortgage-holders', could those who lied on self-cert motgages find 
> themselves facing criminal charges?


Certainly lying on a application would clearly be "obtaining a pecuniary 
advantage by deception"  As the B&B mortgage book is reputed to be 80% or 
more self certified the practicality of prosecuting thousands of applicants 
would be quite difficult, always assuming that a significant percentage of 
self certifiers did in fact lie.

Peter Crosland

"Peter Crosland"  wrote in message 
news:I7idncCNkb4aunzVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>> Concerning the collapse of B&B, whose collapse the BBC News said today 
>> was 'partially caused by the slowdown in mortgage replayments by 
>> buy-to-let mortgage-holders', could those who lied on self-cert motgages 
>> find themselves facing criminal charges?
>
>
> Certainly lying on a application would clearly be "obtaining a pecuniary 
> advantage by deception"  As the B&B mortgage book is reputed to be 80% or 
> more self certified the practicality of prosecuting thousands of 
> applicants would be quite difficult, always assuming that a significant 
> percentage of self certifiers did in fact lie.
>
> Peter Crosland
>


Unless there is a gaping hole in my knowledge, I can't really see the point 
with self-cert, unless the intent is to mislead.

-- 
The best answer to feminism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scold%27s_bridle

"Spamhater"  wrote in message news:gbr84h$ip1$1@aioe.org...
> Concerning the collapse of B&B, whose collapse the BBC News said today was 
> 'partially caused by the slowdown in mortgage replayments by buy-to-let 
> mortgage-holders', could those who lied on self-cert motgages find 
> themselves facing criminal charges?
>
> -- 
> The best answer to feminism:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scold%27s_bridle
>
Most tend to be the self-employed, and if the income stated was true at the 
time and there was a reasonable expectation of it continuing, I would have 
thought they would be in the clear.
If it can be shown that they lied, it would be a different matter - I seem 
to remember that a mortgage broker was done recently for lying on behalf of 
a client.
B.

Spamhater wrote:
> "Peter Crosland"  wrote in message 
> news:I7idncCNkb4aunzVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>>> Concerning the collapse of B&B, whose collapse the BBC News said today 
>>> was 'partially caused by the slowdown in mortgage replayments by 
>>> buy-to-let mortgage-holders', could those who lied on self-cert motgages 
>>> find themselves facing criminal charges?
>>
>> Certainly lying on a application would clearly be "obtaining a pecuniary 
>> advantage by deception"  As the B&B mortgage book is reputed to be 80% or 
>> more self certified the practicality of prosecuting thousands of 
>> applicants would be quite difficult, always assuming that a significant 
>> percentage of self certifiers did in fact lie.
>>
>> Peter Crosland
>>
> 
> 
> Unless there is a gaping hole in my knowledge, I can't really see the point 
> with self-cert, unless the intent is to mislead.
> 
It was meant for people with wierd income patterns , the self employed 
etc. For example a self employee deckchair attendant might earn an 
'average' of £25k per summer over a ten year period, but the last couple 
of years of bad weather would wreck his accounts and chance of a normal 
mortgage.

"Spamhater"  wrote in message news:gbr980$nbr$1@aioe.org...
> "Peter Crosland"  wrote in message 
> news:I7idncCNkb4aunzVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>>> Concerning the collapse of B&B, whose collapse the BBC News said today 
>>> was 'partially caused by the slowdown in mortgage replayments by 
>>> buy-to-let mortgage-holders', could those who lied on self-cert motgages 
>>> find themselves facing criminal charges?
>>
>>
>> Certainly lying on a application would clearly be "obtaining a pecuniary 
>> advantage by deception"  As the B&B mortgage book is reputed to be 80% or 
>> more self certified the practicality of prosecuting thousands of 
>> applicants would be quite difficult, always assuming that a significant 
>> percentage of self certifiers did in fact lie.
>>
>> Peter Crosland
>>
>
>
> Unless there is a gaping hole in my knowledge, I can't really see the 
> point with self-cert, unless the intent is to mislead.
>
I thought it was for self-employed people who had difficulty proving income.
However, it seems that the banking industry appointed any old idiots as bank 
managers.  I wonder if work experience students were allowed to approve 
loans?

"mert1639"  wrote:

>> Unless there is a gaping hole in my knowledge, I can't really see the 
>> point with self-cert, unless the intent is to mislead.

>I thought it was for self-employed people who had difficulty proving income.
>However, it seems that the banking industry appointed any old idiots as bank 
>managers.  I wonder if work experience students were allowed to approve 
>loans? 

The 'bank' has the property as collateral so it doesn't matter if the
borrower defaults. 

The problem was lending with insufficient collateral, presumably on the
ridiculous assumption that spiraling property prices would continue for
ever. 

Anyone with a clue could see the property price inflation we have had was
unsustainable and the bubble would burst like it has. 
--

"Peter Crosland"  wrote in message 
news:I7idncCNkb4aunzVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>> Concerning the collapse of B&B, whose collapse the BBC News said today 
>> was 'partially caused by the slowdown in mortgage replayments by 
>> buy-to-let mortgage-holders', could those who lied on self-cert motgages 
>> find themselves facing criminal charges?
>
>
> Certainly lying on a application would clearly be "obtaining a pecuniary 
> advantage by deception"  As the B&B mortgage book is reputed to be 80% or 
> more self certified the practicality of prosecuting thousands of 
> applicants would be quite difficult, always assuming that a significant 
> percentage of self certifiers did in fact lie.

I think the 80% figure refers to both buy-to-rent & self cert. mortgages, 
not just self cert.

-- 
Joe Lee

"Spamhater"  wrote in message news:gbr980$nbr$1@aioe.org...
> "Peter Crosland"  wrote in message 
> news:I7idncCNkb4aunzVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>>> Concerning the collapse of B&B, whose collapse the BBC News said today 
>>> was 'partially caused by the slowdown in mortgage replayments by 
>>> buy-to-let mortgage-holders', could those who lied on self-cert motgages 
>>> find themselves facing criminal charges?
>>
>>
>> Certainly lying on a application would clearly be "obtaining a pecuniary 
>> advantage by deception"  As the B&B mortgage book is reputed to be 80% or 
>> more self certified the practicality of prosecuting thousands of 
>> applicants would be quite difficult, always assuming that a significant 
>> percentage of self certifiers did in fact lie.
>>
>> Peter Crosland
>>
>
>
> Unless there is a gaping hole in my knowledge, I can't really see the 
> point with self-cert, unless the intent is to mislead.

It was simply another route to lending at a time when financial markets were 
awash with 'money' & desperate to lend it out. Another example of the 
desperation to lend was the 125% mortgages!
"What - you need a £200,000 mortgage ? No, we don't want to give you that - 
how about £250,000?"

-- 
Joe Lee

"nospam" <nospam@please.invalid> wrote in message 
news:mgf2e4155m5g957o2vs3t8auq00aeq64q9@4ax.com...
> "mert1639"  wrote:
>
>>> Unless there is a gaping hole in my knowledge, I can't really see the
>>> point with self-cert, unless the intent is to mislead.
>
>>I thought it was for self-employed people who had difficulty proving 
>>income.
>>However, it seems that the banking industry appointed any old idiots as 
>>bank
>>managers.  I wonder if work experience students were allowed to approve
>>loans?
>
> The 'bank' has the property as collateral so it doesn't matter if the
> borrower defaults.
>
> The problem was lending with insufficient collateral, presumably on the
> ridiculous assumption that spiraling property prices would continue for
> ever.
>
> Anyone with a clue could see the property price inflation we have had was
> unsustainable and the bubble would burst like it has.

I don't follow you.
The only co-lateral banks have ever had on mortgages, or indeed many other 
loans, is the property.  People rarely have the same sum as the mortgage in 
savings.
I think the mistake was more leanding to people who couldn't pay.

"mert1639"  wrote:

>
>"nospam" <nospam@please.invalid> wrote in message 
>news:mgf2e4155m5g957o2vs3t8auq00aeq64q9@4ax.com...
>> "mert1639"  wrote:
>>
>>>> Unless there is a gaping hole in my knowledge, I can't really see the
>>>> point with self-cert, unless the intent is to mislead.
>>
>>>I thought it was for self-employed people who had difficulty proving 
>>>income.
>>>However, it seems that the banking industry appointed any old idiots as 
>>>bank
>>>managers.  I wonder if work experience students were allowed to approve
>>>loans?
>>
>> The 'bank' has the property as collateral so it doesn't matter if the
>> borrower defaults.
>>
>> The problem was lending with insufficient collateral, presumably on the
>> ridiculous assumption that spiraling property prices would continue for
>> ever.
>>
>> Anyone with a clue could see the property price inflation we have had was
>> unsustainable and the bubble would burst like it has.
>
>I don't follow you.
>The only co-lateral banks have ever had on mortgages, or indeed many other 
>loans, is the property. 

Huh? Yes the property was the only collateral they had and they lent more
than the property was worth, so they lent with insufficient collateral.

Any 100%+ mortgage is plainly lending with insufficient collateral. I
predict that any recent lending for more than 60% will turn out to be
insufficient collateral by the time the property bubble has finished
bursting. 

They made money gambling and pumped up the property bubble in the process.
As a bubble burst become more and more inevitable the odds they gambled
against got worse and worse but they we too stupid or too greedy to stop. 

That said the people who continued to pay grossly inflated prices for
property were also too greedy or too stupid to stop. They can walk away
from negative equity leaving the problem with the banks, now the banks are
folding leaving the problem with their investors and creditors and to
prevent the whole financial system collapsing in a heap the government is
picking up the problem and giving it to tax payers. 
--

"nospam" <nospam@please.invalid> wrote in message 
news:nea4e456kl0auecglq7elqps6192tkcnac@4ax.com...
> "mert1639"  wrote:
>
>>
>>"nospam" <nospam@please.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:mgf2e4155m5g957o2vs3t8auq00aeq64q9@4ax.com...
>>> "mert1639"  wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Unless there is a gaping hole in my knowledge, I can't really see the
>>>>> point with self-cert, unless the intent is to mislead.
>>>
>>>>I thought it was for self-employed people who had difficulty proving
>>>>income.
>>>>However, it seems that the banking industry appointed any old idiots as
>>>>bank
>>>>managers.  I wonder if work experience students were allowed to approve
>>>>loans?
>>>
>>> The 'bank' has the property as collateral so it doesn't matter if the
>>> borrower defaults.
>>>
>>> The problem was lending with insufficient collateral, presumably on the
>>> ridiculous assumption that spiraling property prices would continue for
>>> ever.
>>>
>>> Anyone with a clue could see the property price inflation we have had 
>>> was
>>> unsustainable and the bubble would burst like it has.
>>
>>I don't follow you.
>>The only co-lateral banks have ever had on mortgages, or indeed many other
>>loans, is the property.
>
> Huh? Yes the property was the only collateral they had and they lent more
> than the property was worth, so they lent with insufficient collateral.
>
What do you mean they lent more than it was worth?  There were few 100%+ 
loans.  The vlaue can only be what people are prepared to pay for it.  The 
Bank can't decide on any other value.

"mert1639"  wrote:

>
>> Huh? Yes the property was the only collateral they had and they lent more
>> than the property was worth, so they lent with insufficient collateral.
>
>What do you mean they lent more than it was worth?  There were few 100%+ 
>loans.  The vlaue can only be what people are prepared to pay for it.  The 
>Bank can't decide on any other value.

For use as collateral the banks have to decide what people will be prepared
to pay in the future when they may need to repossess and sell. 

--

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:39:30 +0100, "mert1639"
 wrote:

>
>"nospam" <nospam@please.invalid> wrote in message 
>news:mgf2e4155m5g957o2vs3t8auq00aeq64q9@4ax.com...
>> "mert1639"  wrote:
>>
>>>> Unless there is a gaping hole in my knowledge, I can't really see the
>>>> point with self-cert, unless the intent is to mislead.
>>
>>>I thought it was for self-employed people who had difficulty proving 
>>>income.
>>>However, it seems that the banking industry appointed any old idiots as 
>>>bank
>>>managers.  I wonder if work experience students were allowed to approve
>>>loans?
>>
>> The 'bank' has the property as collateral so it doesn't matter if the
>> borrower defaults.
>>
>> The problem was lending with insufficient collateral, presumably on the
>> ridiculous assumption that spiraling property prices would continue for
>> ever.
>>
>> Anyone with a clue could see the property price inflation we have had was
>> unsustainable and the bubble would burst like it has.
>
>I don't follow you.
>The only co-lateral banks have ever had on mortgages, or indeed many other 
>loans, is the property.  People rarely have the same sum as the mortgage in 
>savings.
>I think the mistake was more leanding to people who couldn't pay. 
>
Plus lending on overvalued assets

"nospam" <nospam@please.invalid> wrote in message 
news:7uj4e45v7e75p4uio7vk79qnqm1ec3nlha@4ax.com...
> "mert1639"  wrote:
>
>>
>>> Huh? Yes the property was the only collateral they had and they lent 
>>> more
>>> than the property was worth, so they lent with insufficient collateral.
>>
>>What do you mean they lent more than it was worth?  There were few 100%+
>>loans.  The vlaue can only be what people are prepared to pay for it.  The
>>Bank can't decide on any other value.
>
> For use as collateral the banks have to decide what people will be 
> prepared
> to pay in the future when they may need to repossess and sell.
I don't see how a bank can be expected to know what something will be worth 
in the future.

nospam wrote:
> 
> "mert1639"  wrote:
> 
> >> Unless there is a gaping hole in my knowledge, I can't really see the
> >> point with self-cert, unless the intent is to mislead.
> 
> >I thought it was for self-employed people who had difficulty proving income.
> >However, it seems that the banking industry appointed any old idiots as bank
> >managers.  I wonder if work experience students were allowed to approve
> >loans?
> 
> The 'bank' has the property as collateral so it doesn't matter if the
> borrower defaults.

Quite true. In a 'normally' rising market, the banks don't care. They
rather hope that the borrower default so that they can get their miffs
on the property at a knock down price.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:29:44 +0100, "Retired" 
wrote:

>"Spamhater"  wrote in message news:gbr84h$ip1$1@aioe.org...
>> Concerning the collapse of B&B, whose collapse the BBC News said today was 
>> 'partially caused by the slowdown in mortgage replayments by buy-to-let 
>> mortgage-holders', could those who lied on self-cert motgages find 
>> themselves facing criminal charges?
>>
>> -- 
>> The best answer to feminism:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scold%27s_bridle
>>
>Most tend to be the self-employed, and if the income stated was true at the 
>time and there was a reasonable expectation of it continuing, I would have 
>thought they would be in the clear.
>If it can be shown that they lied, it would be a different matter - I seem 
>to remember that a mortgage broker was done recently for lying on behalf of 
>a client.
>B. 
>

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2008/09/30/north-wales-mortgage-broker-banned-and-fined-100-000-55578-21931515/
A mortgage broker has been banned and fined £100,000 for exposing
1,500 customers to the risk that they took out unsuitable mortgages,
the City watchdog said today
-- 
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
http://www.holidayunder100.co.uk