PHOTO: FILE
A couple who made an unconditional bid at an auction for a house, without realizing they lacked home loan preapproval, have been awarded $20,000 in compensation by their financial adviser.
The women lodged a complaint against the adviser with Financial Services Complaints Ltd (FSCL), a financial ombudsman service that addresses unresolved complaints. The identities of the complainants and the organizations involved remain confidential.
The couple already owned a home in South Auckland and a rental property in Whangārei and were seeking another investment property. In February 2021, one of the women contacted a financial adviser who suggested they join a “property programme.” Over February and March, they shared their financial details with the adviser and discussed potential borrowing amounts, receiving an estimate of up to $1.6 million.
In April 2021, one of the women informed the adviser of their intention to bid at an auction for a property in Te Atatu South. The adviser noted issues with the property that might require further information from the lender. Despite this, the couple bid $1.6 million and won the auction with an unconditional offer, committing them to the purchase.
However, banks refused to lend the money due to the property’s issues, forcing the adviser to secure a loan from a non-bank lender at a higher interest rate. The couple complained that they were not properly advised about the pre-approval process and sought to recover their losses, totaling $126,571, including late settlement fees, fees for arranging non-bank finance, and additional interest. They also requested $5000 for inconvenience and stress.
One of the women told FSCL that they believed the adviser’s assessment negated the need for preapproval. The adviser countered that they had never stated preapproval was unnecessary or advised bidding without it.
FSCL’s investigation found that the adviser had not maintained comprehensive records. While the adviser likely mentioned the $1.6 million borrowing potential, FSCL determined it was improbable that the property program was presented as a preapproval substitute. The $1.6 million estimate was based on the property being owner-occupied, and higher deposits are typically required for investment properties.
Given the couple’s previous property market experience, FSCL stated they should have been aware of the risks of bidding without secured finance. The adviser offered $20,000 to resolve the complaint, acknowledging lapses in record-keeping and inadequate response to the client’s inquiries on April 9, 2021. On that day, the adviser knew the client lacked preapproval and planned to bid but did not adequately warn of the risks and consequences.
FSCL deemed the $20,000 offer to be fair.
SOURCE: RNZ