halifax/colleys

[joanna0703]

Hi, just trawling through and came across a post which involved the Halifax and colleys. We are just about to write to the Ombudsman because we have had no joy from the Halifax. We re-mortgaged in 2007 and had a meeting with the Mortgage advisor. He offered us loads of deals and in the end we settled for one which suited us at the time. At the end of the meeting he stated that there was a product fee of I think £1000 and this included valuation report survey and included solicitors fees. We were never offered a survey, although it clearly stated on their website that a survey would be offered to us, either option 1, 2 or 3. As we were transferring from another Building Society we were not overly concerned about the state of our house and never have been but were happy that all these things would be included in our package/product fee. Having looked at the website it clearly stated and we did not expect anything other than option 1, a survey would come to the house and briefly check for any cracks, subsidence but it was made very clear that this was not a full survey but at least we expected him to come to the house. We now find out that he did a quick drive by and as we were remortgaging for quite a lot of money to carry out extensive works we would have thought that at least a visit to the house would be warranted. Our house is high up in the sand dunes and there is no way that anyone could drive by and see the condition of our house, which is hid from the road by shrubs. We are now trying to sell and our estate agent recommended a mundic test which has now come back as a B which is unmortgageable. As we live in cornwall and the mundic problem has raised many questions, I am reliably informed by the estate agent that all banks and building societies categorically have to request a mundic report, which the owners have to pay for, in houses dated from 1930 to 1950. We have raised this with the Halifax who state that it was our responsibility to tell them it was mundic. We had no idea it was mundic when we originally bought the house in 1992 and it was before the time of rigorous testing, but they are insistent that they only required to do a drive by to ensure that there was sufficient collateral for them. We have placed before them their terms and conditions which clearly states they will carry out one of three types of survey, which did not happen, they are claiming we should have given them a full report of the state of the house, which is excellent but as we pointed out we are not surveyors and when we asked them to place it before their legal team as it had come to light that other houses which had mundic had been missed by the Halifax, it sat on the Complaints Managers desk for over two weeks and it was only when I chased that he decided to send it over only to have a very quick return to say we had the option of the ombudsman. Our house has currently been devalued by over £200,000 because it is now unmortgageable and we feel that if we had known from a minimalistic survey that there was cause for concern then we certainly would not have borrowed the money from the Halifax in the knowledge that the house is now only fit for redevelopment. Has anyone else had this problem and if so can you advise how you went about resolving it ?????

[Diana M]

Re: halifax/colleys

One quick question. You say this happened when you remortgaged the property in 2007. Does that mean the mundic problem wasn't an issue with the previous mortgage lender?

Or has the property deteriorated since you first bought it and/or or when the last survey was carried out (for the previous lender)?

Di

[joanna0703]

Re: halifax/colleys

[QUOTE=Diana M;727429]One quick question. You say this happened when you remortgaged the property in 2007. Does that mean the mundic problem wasn't an issue with the previous mortgage lender?

Or has the property deteriorated since you first bought it and/or or when the last survey was carried out (for the previous lender)?


Hi, we bought the property in 1992 and there was no issue with the mundic as it was never requested. At that time the mundic problem had not really reared its ugly head and as we had put down 50% of the purchase price the sale of the house went through very quickly. However, when we remortgaged with the Halifax in 2007 there were grave concerns about the mundic situation in areas of mining, which is where we are, but there was never any question of us having to get a mundic report. We only had 20k left on the mortgage and were requesting 120k to completely renovate the house and renovate the flat next door as my parents were moving in. The remortgage meeting was very quick, we were told 1000 to do everything in house and the only difference we would notice would be the direct debit amount taken from our bank.

The house is in very good condition, there has been no deterioration which can be seen in some houses. in fact when we had our mundic test done some six months ago, the company involved stated that the house was immaculate, the outside areas showed no deterioration, slilppage or cracking, the house has regularly been externally protected because we are on the edge of the beach and open to the elements and gutters and drainage areas were clean and tidy. The owner of the company made a remark to the estate agent who was present that the house would probably be here long after we were gone, which was reassuring????? It was only up to this point that we realised we had mundic as the Halifax had given us a mortgage on the property back in 2007 and they were astonished to say the least when we reported that the test had come back with positive mundic as the advisor stated we do not mortgage on mundic properties and that is when the problem started because we stated that according to the RICS the advice given well before 2007 was that properties in areas endemic with mining waste and of the age between 1930 and 1950 should categorically have a mundic test. this seems to have slipped through the net and we feel it is because of the drive by that was carried out. In essence, only having 20k left on a mortgage, why would we re-mortgage for 120k if we though the house was unsaleable.

[Diana M]

Re: halifax/colleys

Was this a 'Further Advance' / 'Additional Borrowing' with your existing lender, not a remortgage from another lender in 2007?

There are slightly different requirements for further advances. From what you say it was more money from the same lender since you say the same direct debit continued only for a higher amount.

If there is already a mortgage in place and the same lender is prepared to advance you further monies then a valuation may be all that's required (to see if the property has enough equity to protect their financial risk) not a hands-on survey as such.

A valuation is often a drive-by plus a search for 'comparables' in the area to assess the market value. Sometimes they don't even drive-by they just do a desktop valuation (the Halifax would use it's own House Price Index based on data from Land Registry etc for that).

Presumably you have building insurance. Have you checked to see whether you have Legal Expenses cover included in the policy (most do). If so, then you may be able to get funding to sue the lender/broker/surveyor/valuer if any one of them has messed up.

In fact a good look at your buildings insurance cover may be a good thing to see if problems caused by mundic (damp?) are covered under the policy.

Di

[joanna0703]

Re: halifax/colleys

Was this a 'Further Advance' / 'Additional Borrowing' with your existing lender, not a remortgage from another lender in 2007?

There are slightly different requirements for further advances. From what you say it was more money from the same lender since you say the same direct debit continued only for a higher amount.

If there is already a mortgage in place and the same lender is prepared to advance you further monies then a valuation may be all that's required (to see if the property has enough equity to protect their financial risk) not a hands-on survey as such.

A valuation is often a drive-by plus a search for 'comparables' in the area to assess the market value. Sometimes they don't even drive-by they just do a desktop valuation (the Halifax would use it's own House Price Index based on data from Land Registry etc for that).

Presumably you have building insurance. Have you checked to see whether you have Legal Expenses cover included in the policy (most do). If so, then you may be able to get funding to sue the lender/broker/surveyor/valuer if any one of them has messed up.

In fact a good look at your buildings insurance cover may be a good thing to see if problems caused by mundic (damp?) are covered under the policy.

Di

Hello

When we remortgaged in 2007 it was from another building society. I think the main issue here is that at this time Banks and Building Societies were requested to ensure that remortgaged properties, especially in cornwall, were free from mundic as there had been a lot of publicity surrounding what is now called "concrete cancer" which did not seem to be an issue when we first took out our mortgage with the Woolwich. However when we remortgaged with the Halifax, grave concerns were being raised by lenders and the RICS about mundic and this is the reason they were stating that mundic reports should be requested before any monies were lent. When we first took out our mortgage, lenders were lending on mundic properties of a certain type although we were never asked for a mundic test. and we had no knowledge about mundic at that time. Our issue is that when we remortgaged for 120k, bearing in mind we only had 20k left, we feel that the Halifax were aware we were in an area of properties with mundic, any local experienced Surveyor should have visited the property. We now know that this work was sub contracted out to a local surveryor. At that time, we note from our paperwork that the Halifax presumed our property was worth 386k. Our estate agent has stated that this is absolutely wrong because if the surveyor had seen the property, which had tell tale signs of grey chippings on the wall, air vents at the bottom of the walls and many other signs, this would have raised alarm bells which it did with him and was why he stated we should have a mundic test carried out, and if the test had come back in 2007 the house, in his opinion, would only have been worth about 120k and it would have been pointless us borrowing money on a house that at that time would have been unmortgageable and we would have been better knocking it down and rebuilding. As it stands at the moment the Halifax are stating that it was up to us to tell them the condition of the house, which in all reality we would have stated it was very good, but we are not surveyors and as their website stated that any re-mortgage would be subject to three options of survey which was included in their in house package. That is why we think they have been negligent.

[Diana M]

Re: halifax/colleys

Your posts are long but I've glanced through them and got the gist.

One question is: what difference would it have made if a surveyor had identified mundic in 2007 and what have you lost as a result?

I'm guessing that the Halifax may not have given you the remortgage but would your complaint be that they shouldn't have advanced you the money?

If you'd known about the mundic in 2007 (from a survey) what could you have done with that knowledge?

From what I've read there is no 'cure' for mundic but are there any measures you could have taken to prevent future deterioration or problems with the fabric of the property so you have now lost that opportunity, or it'll cost more to remedy the problem which was only discovered ten years later?

Di

[joanna0703]

Re: halifax/colleys

Your posts are long but I've glanced through them and got the gist.

One question is: what difference would it have made if a surveyor had identified mundic in 2007 and what have you lost as a result?

I'm guessing that the Halifax may not have given you the remortgage but would your complaint be that they shouldn't have advanced you the money?

If you'd known about the mundic in 2007 (from a survey) what could you have done with that knowledge?

From what I've read there is no 'cure' for mundic but are there any measures you could have taken to prevent future deterioration or problems with the fabric of the property so you have now lost that opportunity, or it'll cost more to remedy the problem which was only discovered ten years later?

Di

Hi

if the test had come back as positive then we certainly would not have taken the further advance nor would they have given it to us. What would we have lost at that time would be the opportunity to make a decision whether to knock down and rebuild. However because of their lack of survey they lent us the money on a property that had no real value because it was unmortgagable. ~Without wanting to labour the point they would have known this if a proper valuation/survey had been carried out.

There are no measures we could have taken to prevent further deterioration. We have been advised that we could remove the foundations "step by step" which would involve taking up paths, get down to the foundations, step removal of foundation and replace, there is no resolution for the mundic found in the external wall. The property has been maintained over the years by protecting the outside because we are open to the elements by being by the sea and we are advised that this has prevented any deterioration in the mundic because if it gets wet then the arsenic quickly starts to erode the concrete block. The only way forward would be to knock down and rebuild but as we already have a substantial mortgage then this is not an option for us because we could not afford to do this. If this had happened in 2007 then it may have been a feasible option but now we find ourselves in a situation whereby the house is substantially reduced with no offers and by the time we pay back the mortgage we would be left with no monies to even put a substantial deposit down on another house in an area where all our family live and we are a vital link to our children