WHAT YOU SHOULD BE WRITING TO FOS AND CIO even after they have thrown out their utterly biased Determinations.
Conclusion
It is the Bank’s responsibility for checking the affordability of the loan according to s25.1 of the Bankers Code which NAB signed and agreed to do so.
The loan’s assessment was approved without any verification of FACTS and without any phone call to the customer.
As per recent court decisions the Broker was the AGENT OF THE BANK, also backed by ex Ombudsman Colin Neave’s advice/warning to bankers in 2001.
The NAB agent/broker was NOT required to approve the loans.
According to the Judges in several cases during the past decade, the bank is responsible to ensure the LOAN IS VERIFIED as AFFORDABLE.
I was only a casual worker.
False details were added in after my signature had been obtained and without my knowledge or authority. It is unclear whether these alterations were made by the credit assessors or the BDM or the agent. In any case the bank is responsible for the approval.
The sole purpose of the misrepresentation was intended to deceive and influence the decision making process of the NAB. Evidence exits and has been presented to courts and the Senate whereby Bank CEO’s were encouraging sellers to “pump up the volume.”
The NAB process was clearly designed to avoid the “alarm bells” of mortgage fraud via an automated computer assessment system without any final credit assessment conducted on the verification of the details contained in the NAB loan application form.
NAB’s failure to verify the information resulted in the approval of the loan.
NAB intended all loans to be approved unverified, unaffordable and unsustainable.
NAB engineered the 30 year interest only loan to be marketed to ARIP borrowers.
NAB knew this loan was unsafe and knew we were not giving “projected incomes….”
NAB ensured that NAB’s BDM’s taught all sellers to develop projected income and NAB also knew that certain critical information relating to IO Loans sold as Low Docs, could never be paid off.
NAB ordered that certain document not be shown to the borrower in order to cover up this information.
I claim that the loan should not have been approved but also question the validity of the contract and the validity of the valuations misused as a “normal process” of loan approvals.
The media have picked up on “so much false information” contained on identical loans to ours.
NAB ensured we would not suspect any of the above FACTS and had we known of these practices by the Bank, prior to settlement, we would have cancelled the loan.
All the above facts highlight a case of imprudent lending on the part of NAB, as a result of non-affordability and deliberate LAF misrepresentation, ACCEPTED by the Bank.
I request FOS use its powers to insist remedial action be taken by NAB, to place me back in a financial position as if I had never applied for this loan in the first place.
The recent issues raised by 79% of Australians calling for a Royal Commission into the Banking System are every reason why these Determinations are far too biased towards the Banks point of view (and their lawyers)
I am asking for fairness based upon FACTs presented.
This is all about the Bank’s approval of a toxic and unaffordable loan.
Negative Gearing is just a “generic” excuse as in FACT my income was reduced to being unable to service the loan from DAY ONE.
Later the reduced hours only compounding this problem.
Loan ought to have been rejected. Fraud has been used on our documents as recently discovered. Had we had a copy of the LAF provided prior to settlement we would have immediately cancelled the application and NAB KNEW THIS.
It is now obvious NAB provided no-one a copy of the LAF and forbid its sellers, whether bank officers or field agents, from providing this vital document to the borrowers like us.
NAB also ensured only three pages were presented to us and only recently did we discover that another 8 pages existed.
The loan was clearly NOT in our financial interests and NAB knew this to be true in substance and true in fact.
FOS do not mention these points.
I believe there is a higher authority of a Consumer Committee and I am therefore asking that either FOS review its decision in my case or send my file to the committee of review.