Click on our Secret Library of Evidence ------>

    BANKILEAKS Secret Library

Loan Application Forms (LAF's)  

    Bank Emails to Brokers  

    Then Click on 'VIEW NOTEBOOK'

Join us on facebook

facebook3           facebook2 


What BFCSA Does...

BFCSA investigates fraud involving lenders, spruikers and financial planners worldwide.  Full Doc, Low Doc, No Doc loans, Lines of Credit and Buffer loans appear to be normal profit making financial products, however, these loans are set to implode within seven years.  For the past two decades, Ms Brailey, President of BFCSA (Inc), has been a tireless campaigner, championing the cause of older and low income people around the Globe who have fallen victim to banking and finance scams.  She has found that people of all ages are being targeted by Bankers offering faulty lending products. BFCSA warn that anyone who has signed up for one of these financial products, is in grave danger of losing their home.


Articles View Hits

Whistleblowers' Corner!

To all mortgage brokers, BDMs and loan approval officers! 
Pls Call Denise: 0401 642 344 

"Confidentiality is assured."

Cartoon Corner

Lighten your load today and "Laugh all the way to the bank!"

Lee Doyle

Led by award-winning consumer advocate Denise Brailey, BFCSA (Inc) are a group of people who are concerned about the appalling growth of Loan Fraud around the world. BFCSA (Inc) is a not for profit organisation in the spirit of global community concern and justice.

Click on the Cluster Map.

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Login
    Login Login form

BFCSA: My Story - don't ever tell your bank you are in hardship, my undoing also

  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 1875
  • Print
Comment by Jay S. - Posted on Saturday, February 1, 2014

Yes, don't ever tell your bank you are in hardship, my undoing also.  I could have borrowed money from anywhere without their help to keep going, instead I did what it said in my Contract. Tell us, they say.

Now, no home, horrible and ruthless eviction instead of sensible help and compassion, and they will send me to bankruptcy after underselling my home by a few hundred thousand. And they are justifying the costs of their foreclosure and many valuations and re-valuations to prove it was only worth what their 'arranged purchaser' paid for it!

So is it possible to LOVE A BANK? Every BOQ victim knows the answer to that one.

Whoever thought up that fraudulent slogan?

...... " Yes my bank manager knew a lot too. He leaned on me to sell other assets, I never thought I would have to sell, made the whole further loans and purchases defunct. From the moment after the granting of the loans in 2007-08, like he knew they had done wrong and things were changing and they were getting caught - this was just before the NCCP Act, but then Stuart Grimshaw BOQ chief was one of the instigators of that Act. They shouldn't have granted any loans in those circumstances - and I thought I had got there because I 'qualified.'

PS - my income was altered up $250K or more - that's a big fraud!

Last modified on
Rate this blog entry:


  • doyla66
    doyla66 Sunday, 02 February 2014


    In Qld foreclosed properties are supposed to sell by auction

    85 Duty of mortgagee or receiver as to sale price
    (1) It is the duty of a mortgagee, including as attorney for the mortgagor, or a receiver acting under a power delegated to the receiver by a mortgagee, in the exercise of a power of sale conferred by the instrument of mortgage or by this or any other Act, to take reasonable care to ensure that the property is sold at the market value.

    (1A) Also, if the mortgage is a prescribed mortgage, the duty imposed by subsection (1) includes that a mortgagee or receiver must, unless the mortgagee or receiver has a reasonable excuse—

    (a) adequately advertise the sale; and
    (b) obtain reliable evidence of the property's value; and
    (c) maintain the property, including by undertaking any reasonable repairs; and
    (d) sell the property by auction, unless it is appropriate to sell it in another way; and
    (e) do anything else prescribed under a regulation.

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Sunday, 02 February 2014

    Did you have inflated property valuations? BOQ bank managers could approve loans up to x amount at 80 percent and below themselves without having the loans being scrutinized further. The storm financial case demonstrated how much BOQ bank managers were prepared to write inaccurate LAFS and how wide spread the practice was. BOQ headquarters knew and did nothing about it!

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Sunday, 02 February 2014

    Our property was valued by Nab. According to the Country Bank Manager I originally applied to for the loan he stated that the valuation is only rated at 60% of the figures less any outstanding debts which then gives you the figure you can apply for as a loan. This loan application was declined. It was in our local area. The assessor knew the business. Nab managed to lose all trace of the loan application when challenged by FOS. Neither the hard copy nor the electronic copy could be found after some weeks of searching. It was apparently not reported as a declined loan in our Credit Report. Figure that on!!!!! The Nab, melbourne branch utilised the entire valuation amount and did not take off the outstanding debts including a Nab credit card for $25K. This manipulation then supposedly secured the business loan. Deceitful and devious trick. We did not know this was going on at the time. We were stupid and trusted Nab's abilities. Nab took us down big time. We now have no home and the saga has not finished yet some 8 months after eviction.

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Monday, 03 February 2014

    I had been told by an old trustworthy property valuer back in the early 1980’s that a good rule of thumb to work on when buying any property was to add the current VG + the building replacement cost and then to add or subtract according to current market conditions (whether a rising or falling market) + take the uniqueness of the property into account i.e. building construction material, if designed by an architect, property size, land potential re development, proximity to public transport etc. AND it was always spot on (unless on foreclosed properties). Why I tried to dispute the property valuation done in 2006 by ANZ for it came in $200,000 lower than an independent valuation I had done just 2 years earlier. Did not expect it to be higher for the market had taken a dive in 2004 but according to the rule of thumb it should have been roughly the same as the VG and building insurance cover had not decreased and had actually both risen a tad according to the CPI plus taking into account what properties in the area had been selling for. Seems since the introduction of VALEX in 2004 things have changed with many valuations now drive-by and calculated on the median price minus taking unique property factors into account OR incorrect input on property database systems. I was also told by somebody into property investment that lenders would encourage people to renovate with the buffer money and then have a new valuation done for the highest value on the building was always when first built or newly renovated. That of course changed the LVR meaning one could now borrow even more money to buy an investment property! What they were not telling people is that the highest value on the building component the way the system was then working was when the house was brand new or newly renovated and then started to decrease annually! Why so many property investors were caught holding investment properties which despite rental income and negative gearing were still costing them money and to sell would see them end up with negative equity just as happened with so many new first home buyers when the GFC hit. Now looks set to be all happening all over again – recycling the same properties minus many sellers even being aware that they might not even own what they are selling!

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Tuesday, 04 February 2014

    Senator Williams recently quizzed ASIC why they did a settlement with BOQ (re Doyle case) as their job was to prosecute and not to make settlements. ASIC settlement in the DOYLE case was a dismal failure as it failed to serve the public interest at all. It helped no Storm victims but the Doyles. It set no precedence and achieved nothing else.. Interestingly enough they let BOQ North Ward off the same charges they have levelled against brokers of recent... BOQ North Ward bank managers still own and operate the bank to this day!!! Any fairness in that - I think not. This case alone proves publically that ASIC will go after brokers and not the bank lenders..!! I also know for a fact that there is at least a dozen other people (not storm related) taking this particular BOQ branch to FOS or have hired solicitor representation due to this particular bank's lending practices. 60 minutes also exposed internal emails flagging problems with the branch from their risk management teams dating back as far as 2006 and nothing was done by BOQ to erectify the problem.

Leave your comment

Guest Saturday, 27 February 2021