I’ve done a deal with Mortgage Express

by Readers Question

14:53 PM, 24th October 2017
About 4 years ago

I’ve done a deal with Mortgage Express

Make Text Bigger
I’ve done a deal with Mortgage Express

I’ve read many bad reports about the tactics of Mortgage Express to call in loans so when the Divorce Courts ruled that two properties mortgaged to them had to be transferred into my name only and that my husbands name had to be removed from the mortgages I was naturally concerned. The mortgage rates are unbeatable in the current market so refinancing would incur both fees and higher interest rates.

I also have other mortgages with Mortgage Express so I was worried they’d tell me I needed to refinance the two and then use their “right to consolidate” to call in the others.

Nevertheless, I had to do something so I decided to bite the bullet and write to them to explain my predicament. My letter pointed out that all LTV’s are better than when the mortgages were first taken out and I provided evidence of that. I also pointed out that none of the mortgages had ever been in arrears and that all T&C’s have always been adgered to.

To my surprise they wrote back to me to ask me what’s in it for them, and to say they would consider my proposals if they considered them to be reasonable.

My proposal was to reduce the mortgage term from 10 years to five (still interest only) and to repay an extra £50 a month.

They rejected that offered and countered with five year interest only plus an overpayment of £100 a month.

I’ve asked my solicitor to consider their offer to make sure i’m not missing any dirty tricks but everything appears to be above board.

Has anybody else had any similar experiences and is there anything I should be wary of?

Thanks

Jane

Comments

Monty Bodkin

19:09 PM, 21st January 2018
About 3 years ago

Nice first post Ken.
Unless it fits in with your circumstances or you are really really desperate, don't redeem a Mortgage Express (UKAR) loan without a considerable cash incentive.
It's a lottery win.
Read up on how they have treated customers in the past to understand the kind of people you are dealing with.

Ken Smith

9:52 AM, 22nd January 2018
About 3 years ago

Thank you to both Mark and Monty for their replies.
Mark, that's very encouraging to hear, and yes, if they want to reduced the UKs exposure to our loans then surely it makes sense to work with people to pay the loans off? On the other hand, UKARM staff (civil servants) are hardly going to want to effectively engineer the chance of them not being needed, by helping us to leave them. Perhaps that's just my cynical mind!
Monty, yes, point taken. I think you are saying to still not trust them and keep my head low. My instincts tend to agree with you - but I have to retain the information gleaned here from Glenn and Mark too. I am far from desperate, and as my MX properties are my most profitable I will simply let things ride for now and see what further developments we hear of on this fine forum. Thanks again.

Chris Novice Shark Bait

14:31 PM, 22nd January 2018
About 3 years ago

I have 2 with MX. One LTV 66%, performing well. The other, overvalued at time of purchase under ME watch was a scam property not fit for purpose etc, been void for nearly a year! According to forensic retro valuations we are looking at and LTV of 200%. Yes not a typo.
ME have successfully sued the valuers and conveyancing solicitors for undisclosed amounts under confidentiality agreements and not reduced my mortgage accordingly. Not yet notified of any secularization but it is a very toxic debt.
Very worried about making any approaches. Absent mortgage statements this year. Very curious. I am taking the cautious approach. Would Mark Smith be interested I wonder?

Ken Smith

23:03 PM, 23rd January 2018
About 3 years ago

Wow Chris, that's a shocker. I fully understand your concerns about approaching MX and I share those concerns for my houses, even though they are performing well and probably value up well for LTV purposes.
I find this fear a lot with those landlords with MX loans. They are simply too wary to approach them - and hey presto, no progress can be made.

As Mark points out, the role of UKARM is surely to get the governments money back into public coffers - but you would hardly believe this was the case based on what we hear.

I was wondering, and this question is posed to Mark, is there anyway P118 could get involved in discussing this topic with UKARM in order to understand their current stance? The aim to get some fluidity into things would help many landlords to move on.

For them not to be open to discussing landlords paying back money into public coffers is surely akin to a financial scandal.
The press would be all over it.

Chris Novice Shark Bait

10:21 AM, 24th January 2018
About 3 years ago

Thanks Ken for your comments. My catch 22 is the single most important obstacle preventing me moving forwards with meliorating plans re section 24 and is something I would need to thrash out with Mark if and when I book a consultation, so I do hope he can contribute further on this forum. Any one else got a shocker?

Chris

Mark Alexander

10:29 AM, 24th January 2018
About 3 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Chris Novice Shark Bait at 24/01/2018 - 10:21
Hi Chris

How do you know that MX have sued solicitors and valuers and received settlements under confidentiality agreements? Surely the confidentiality agreements would mean that you don't know?

If compensation has been paid to MX then it stand to reason (purely from a fairness perspective) that your loan balance should be reduced proportionately. Given that FoS make decisions on what they believe to be "fair" as opposed to the law I think you should at least raise the matter with them.

When you purchased the property, did you do any due diligence of your own? I cannot understand how you wouldn't know that you were paying double the real value for a property. Did you look at any others and make comparisons?

Forgive me but I'm really struggling to understand how you managed to find yourself in this position.

The only thing now making more sense is your choice of pseudonym on this forum.

Chris Novice Shark Bait

11:41 AM, 24th January 2018
About 3 years ago

Exactly Mark I was scammed by an outright crook when a novice. Thanks for your reply. That was 10+ years ago. I was gullible and naive then.
How I know is because my acting solicitors let it slip. Then swore me to secrecy. I even know the amount in one aspect but am not allowed to say. As my frustration builds I am taking the view that if I approach M.E. I must not breach the confidentiality rules but it is my solicitors who are in breach. Not me. They are delicately poised negotiating settlement for me but not as well or timely as necessary.
I am still reluctant to approach M.E. because I do not know how they may choose to respond and I will not do it without legal back up perhaps more informed than my current NWNF briefs. This is 100% genuine and an absolute scandal. Any further thoughts?

Mark Alexander

11:50 AM, 24th January 2018
About 3 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Chris Novice Shark Bait at 24/01/2018 - 11:41
Can you locate other victims of the same scam?

Presumably there are other owners of the block in exactly the same position you could team up with? Have you done HMLand Registry searches to find their addresses and write to them?

United you could stand, divided the more likely you are to fall.

NW Landlord

11:51 AM, 24th January 2018
About 3 years ago

I have a couple of flats very similar when very naive in the game that have left me in massive neg equity how they valued at what they did is beyond me not sure if there is anything that can be done. Also bought a good few new builds through redraw which again seem to have questionable valuations and at the time very little to compare to ?

Chris Novice Shark Bait

12:19 PM, 24th January 2018
About 3 years ago

In the last 10 years I have had 3 legal firms onto this. One at my own expense £5K. The scam company imploded with £69m unaccounted for. It featured on Inside Out. Since then one group representation which fragmented when there was a significant call for funds, which leaves me where I am with the NWNF guys.
The indemnity insurers seem to be calling the shots and are bullish. So yes been there. I did do some due diligence and found some recent sales that confirmed the valuers original valuation for M.E. purposes, but the scammer had operated for about 5 years and artificially increased L.R. valuations in the area and so, like many others I was fooled and embarrassed. It was a very sophisticated operation with a police incident operation set up having seized the scammers computers/files etc with >100 personnel. During the crash 2008 the government pulled funding for such activity and M.E. were bailed out by the public purse.
I have carried the burden and survived by making better informed deals and subsidised the problem while still seeking recompense. Seen M.P. Ken Clarke, even got a letter from the Treasury - none other than George Osbourne.
There are a lot of politics behind my predicament, and now section 24 is going to negate all my efforts to restore the balance.
I was involved in the W.B. scandal and became a founder member of the protection group with our well fought winnings. Can it help? Happy to share all with Mark Smith, but there is a limit to what I can post here.
Scammer = Simon Morris Leeds who is outed in the public domain. Do google him. He used in house mortgage brokers and solicitors and yes we fell for it.
I repeat does any of this ring a bell with others that may visit this site. There were 100's of us affected.
Chris.

1 2 3

Leave Comments

Please Log-In OR Become a member to reply to comments or subscribe to new comment notifications.

Forgotten your password?

BECOME A MEMBER

Portfolio Landlords: Now is the time to sell your properties for the best price