Northern Rock cut a scandalous 0.15% from Nov 1st

bilbob_2

The point here is that NR ARE owned by the Govt, and the Govt have instructed banks and BS's to pass on the interest rate cut to borrowers to ease hardship and get the market moving, yet the bank that is OWNER by the Govt are the ones who don't pass it on.
As has already been mentioned, a good proportion of the people who have NR mortgages are the very same people who CANNOT move due to LTV and such like, and are essentially trapped, and are the very same people who desperately need this rate cut to be passed on.
They are abusing a captive audience. Yes, people may only have themselves to blame for taking the mortgage, but as has also been said, that is why you take the advice of professionals. Stuff happens, things go bad, the market fall as well as rise blah blah blah... we know all that. What we didn't expect was to find our lender taking deliberate advantage of that situation, and fleecing those who can least afford it.

How come they can find the money to offer better rates to new mortgage customers than they can to existing ones? Don't worry, it was a rhetorical question. I know the answer, but that doesn't change the fact that they are taking advantage.

stradlinho

Once I am able to excape NR this organisation will never see 1 penny of my money again. Once the General Election comes round, Gordon Brown and Labour will not see 1 vote from me or my family.

bilbob_2

Noz wrote: »

Surely the more unattractive the rates, the quicker mortgages are going to be repaid?

Surely the more unnatractive the rate, the more people are unable to pay it off quicker... The higher the rate, the more is taken in interest repayments.

kazd

Does anybody know how to send one of those petitions to Downing Street, there was one that came around about the Red Arrows and Downing Street emailed everyone. I think we should all email Gordon Brown and get him to sort NR out.

Like everyone else we are suffering at the hands of NR, we are currently paying an extra £400 per month and cannot move because house was purchased for £174k and is now worth approx £130 and thats only if you could sell.

Gorgeous_George

curs82 wrote: »

I accept responsibility for taking out a together mortgage, which we were advised by the broker was the best option. We was also told not to worry about any SVR since house prices will keep rising and in 2 years we would be able to use the equity in our home to remortgage and get on a better rate.

You were advised by an idiot who should be hung.

curs82 wrote: »

We were ftb and knew very little about how mortgages worked barring what we read up on. This is why we used a broker, as we were confident they would be able to help us through the process.

Your broker was only interested in his/her cut. You should have learnt about mortgages before committing to one. This is why I think ALL borrowers should have an NVQ in finance before being allowed to put our banking system at risk.

curs82 wrote: »

Nobody held a gun to my head, but when a broker advises you what the best option is you tend to believe them.

I'd love to be able to remortgage and move away from NR but my LTV is way too high to even consider being able to. By keeping the SVR scandalously high NR are effectively leaving me with no choice but to stay with them on the SVR for the foreseeable future.

At least if they cut the SVR to more of a reasonable % we could begin to consider putting extra money to overpay as we have previously, instead, the SVR has now eaten up any disposable income.

This is where the numpty in charge of NR has gone wrong. He has decided to 'encourage' people to move their mortgages to other lenders. The ones that will (can) leave are the low LTV people that they need to keep. Those who are in negative equity (or near to) are stuck on an unreasonable, punitive SVR. Their LTV will not fall any time soon because the money that they could use to overpay is being eaten up in interest charges.

NR are JOINTLY responsible for the problem some customers find themselves in. The Government (NR, you and me) should be helping these borrowers especially as they can afford to guarantee savings in foreign banks.

GG

Debs12

You can create a number 10 petition at:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/new

I suggested this a few days ago. Someone said that these have never changed a thing but too me it will get the media attention to our plight.

I would set one up by being dyslexic I find trying to get the language right.

I think something about getting their STV rate in line with other lenders now co-owned by the govt....

I think I saw on the news at the gym (hence the missing of the messgage) the NR had now paid 54% or similar of Govt loan back. Ironically they will soon be in a better state than RBS and so on.....

However above 7% is not competive.. for me when I moved last year my LTV was around 83%. I am not a togother borrower or anything like that. My deal ends next spring an I am scared for the valution...Only a 7% decrease and basically I am stuck in the NR debt trap. Even overpayments with house prices decreasing are not going to get the LTV rate up. My current rate is 5.09% an increase is going to be an extra £200 or more. The only mistake I did was taken a NR mortgage not a loan from these other instutions....

If I remortgage now I have a huge redemption to pay..wait much longer my LTV is in a worse state..

I know borrowing money is risky..what I am upset about is now all these other lenders that have went to the gvt cap in hand so all bank customers should be treated a like.

KennyVader

Leon_W wrote: »

Come on now.

The tax payer bailed this out. The government want to see a return to a more competitive lending arena and yet the very bank that is owned by the taxpayer sticks two fingers up.

Stuff the "no obligation" Mike. They have a moral obligation.

So it's alright for every other bank to take all the risk of money lending but not us first eh ? A case of do as I say and not as I do in my book and a complete cop out.

Regards

But for the taxpayer that doesn't have a mortgage or any other dealings with NR - which is surely the majority of taxpayers - it's in their interest that NR keep their rates high so as to either make as much profit as possible, or drive the toxic debt away.

And therein lies the problem with a taxpayer-owned bank!

Gorgeous_George

KennyVader wrote: »

But for the taxpayer that doesn't have a mortgage or any other dealings with NR - which is surely the majority of taxpayers - it's in their interest that NR keep their rates high so as to either make as much profit as possible, or drive the toxic debt away.

And therein lies the problem with a taxpayer-owned bank!

Is there a lot of profit in forcing people into bankruptcy? That's the ONLY way the 'toxic' debt can be driven away.

I think it is better to work WITH people.

GG

neverdespairgirl

Tom_Kelly wrote: »

T

My son handles around 20 cases each week for lenders taking customers to court. Only non payers go to court and his instruction from lenders at present is to accept any deal offered.

Does he work for LPC in London?

Leon_W

KennyVader wrote: »

But for the taxpayer that doesn't have a mortgage or any other dealings with NR - which is surely the majority of taxpayers - it's in their interest that NR keep their rates high so as to either make as much profit as possible, or drive the toxic debt away.

And therein lies the problem with a taxpayer-owned bank!

Surprisingly, half of me sort of agrees with that, but when you sit back and think of the misery such a stance could bring I think we have to be a little bit more realistic.

The problem with Northern Rock Together borrowers is pretty unique coming off a low teaser rate and falling onto a high SVR with no chance of moving the mortgage to a more competitive rate. The thing is, these people are struggling NOW and just a few short months could tip them over the edge.

Now, interest rates are predicted to fall (and some would say quite sharply) pundits yesterday were predicting rates down to 2-3% so why not ease NRs SVR to say 6% NOW ? This would IMMEDIATELY help struggling borrowers. OK, they may not be able to sell but atleast it keeps a roof over their heads and the risk of default (and cost to the taxpayer) is lower.

If the above were to become true, it would then be a case of holding the SVR slightly higher at a later date to recoup the differrence albeit at a more affordable level to the borrowers.

Northern Rock have been bleating on about repaying their loan to the govt in double quick time. Who cares. The cost to the taxpayer could actually be higher in the long run by taking this route. My suggestion would take NR longer to repay but cause far less hardship/reposession and family turmoil.

The people with less than 60%LTV mortgages don't need help. Every lender I know of is clamouring for that business because its the only safe business. Consequently rates ARE competitive. It's the poor guys who haven't got a choice (IE:NR Together) that are being shafted and deserve some more targeted govt assistance and the only way to do that is cut the SVR to a more borrower friendly level.

Regards