When Tandi Fellowes’ client wanted to rebroke, it looked like a spray foam insulation would thwart the deal. But the Probity Mortgages mortgage and protection adviser was determined to get it through.
My client was 84 and already had an existing lifetime mortgage on an interest rate of just over 6%. She was referred to me as she wanted to see if she could benefit from a better rate. After a meeting and completion of the fact find, research and presentation, the application was submitted.
On valuation, it was discovered that she had spray foam insulation in her loft, which resulted in the case being declined. As you might expect, my client was very upset, especially because she had only had it installed in April 2021. Unfortunately, I believe that my client was misled into having the insulation and had no understanding of the implications.
I carefully explained the implications of what had happened, and I was asked to help her to get it removed from the property. After sourcing a CheckaTrade provider, and gaining a quote and agreement from my client, the spray foam was successfully removed a week later.
The next steps were completing an Air enquiry to see who would take on the case and with rates creeping up, time was against us. I submitted the application again explaining to the lender the situation. The valuation was instructed and again declined with comments that the spray foam removal was not adequate. I informed the lender that the experienced removal company had returned to the property and carried out additional work which is when I requested a re-inspection. The underwriter said it should be fine and referred it back to the portfolio surveyor. After several chases, the re-inspection was declined, and the case was declined.
As additional work had been completed at the property, another attempt was made to place the application with a different lender, as my client was very upset. I identified a lender and discussed the entire case with the pre-sales team. They were satisfied and were happy to accept the application, which was submitted, and the valuation was instructed.
Once again, the application was declined on the survey, but this time there was a clear reason for the decline. Some foam was left around the water tank in a confined space in the loft and the removal company returned to the property where a further two bags of foam were removed. Once I knew this work had been completed, I notified the lender who happily instructed a re-inspection. The same surveyor returned to the property and re-inspected the work that had been carried out. The surveyor report resulted in the application being accepted and went to offer.
To say my client was pleased and relieved is an understatement, this has been a challenging case for all concerned. To reduce the time taken and consistent chasing, it would have been advisable if we had detailed feedback and re-inspection at the second application. One question that should be asked is “as an industry can we not do more to protect vulnerable clients from these rogue cowboys installing this spray foam?”
- The views of contributors are not necessarily shared by the Council.
