Northern Rock cut a scandalous 0.15% from Nov 1st

sihibbs

Turnbull2000 wrote: »

The only way to prevent reposessions would be to nationalise the entire housing stock. Otherwise, why would banks provide a mortgage if they knew a borrower could default yet remain in posession? Everybody would suffer, not just those who can't afford their mortgage.

What!? Thats not whats being asked, just for the state bank (NR) to follow the BOE own advice to minimise the repossessions by reducing the rates in line with their own reductions.

Turnbull2000 wrote: »

And 7.X% is hardly stellar in the context of traditional rates. If you struggle with that, then you've borrowed too much. That's your responsibility.

It is considering the cost of living has risen so much.

Anyway the point is BOE is advising other banks to reduce the costs for people yet the state owned bank isn't even following that advice themselves and they should be leading by example.

All anyone is asking for is that things be made a little easier in these rough times to help ride it out - thats in the best interests of everyone in the long term.

Stop harping on about other crap, its not that complex really.

Turnbull2000

sihibbs wrote: »

What!? Thats not whats being asked, just for the state bank (NR) to follow the BOE own advice to minimise the repossessions by reducing the rates in line with their own reductions.



It is considering the cost of living has risen so much.

Anyway the point is BOE is advising other banks to reduce the costs for people yet the state owned bank isn't even following that advice themselves and they should be leading by example.

All anyone is asking for is that things be made a little easier in these rough times to help ride it out - thats in the best interests of everyone in the long term.

Stop harping on about other crap, its not that complex really.

And why should they do that? Unless you're on a tracker, mortgage rates are not tied to interest rate fluctuations. Banks are businesses, and their purpose is not to make it a "little easier" for those who overextended.

What is in the best long term interests of this country is to allow prices to continue to fall... and fall quickly. Just get it all over with. Even the banks now know this. So I doubt the independent banks will offer a helping hand to those who borrowed too much if it means the house price crash will be more prolonged. And rightly so.

Leon_W

Quite frankly Turnbull2000 you're talking absolute bollox and are completely off topic.

This thread has NOTHING to do with house prices at all, NOTHING. If you want to bang on about houseprices go and find a different thread.

The topic of this thread is Northern Rock and their Standard Variable Rate. Nothing Else.

Now, let's make this simple so people can see what we are actually debating here.

1. If Northern Rock had a lower SVR do we think that there would be more repossesions or less ? And the answer is ?............ Less, of course it is, this isn't rocket science.

2. If Northern Rock continue with their policy of not giving borrowers the full cut in rates then how do we think that will impact borrowers already hit by higher fuel costs, rates, food, etc ? Will this lead to more repossesions ? Err, too right it will.


I don't think anyone is saying that they are not allowed to foreclose. Of course they can as there will always be slackers blaming this that and the other for not paying their mortgage. Kick em out I say. No problem with that.

My concern though is that NR are bent on repaying the govt as soon as possible with scant regard for their ordinary customers. A lot of problems could be avoided by charging a more reasonable SVR, therefore enabling people to stay in their own homes and avoiding a great deal of social distress. OK, the govt would be repaid more slowly BUT I believe the actual cost in pounds shillings and pence to the taxpayer, keeping people in their own homes, would be much lower.


As others have said, Gordon was making statements about banks cutting the full rate but the very bank he nationalised didn't. That just isn't right.

People have to realise that NR customers do not want to be repossesed and just want to pay a fair rate. Quite a few of them will obviously be in negative equity but that loss would only be crystallised on a forced sale which could be avoided. I'm only guessing here but I presume most of these customers would rather ride the current market out rather than let a forced sale happen.

Debs12

Thanks Leon W. The post above is excellentent.

Turnbull2000

Leon_W wrote: »

Quite frankly Turnbull2000 you're talking absolute bollox and are completely off topic.

Off topic? Maybe. I apologise for that. But b*llocks? No.

Doublespresso

It's sad to see so many people of the "I told you so" brigade, so intent on criticising fellow MSEs thus missing completely the real spirit/purpose of this site, i.e. helping others who might be in a difficult predicament for whatever (legal) reason.

baby_boomer

Only 5% of building societies passed on the full rate cut.

I'm pleased to see Northern Rock standing up for the British taxpayer in this way.

Repossessions will happen. And there will be more reposessions at NR than elsewhere because of its 125% lending policy and because so much of NR's business was "new business" so that larger volumes than elsewhere are finding themselves on higher rates when their deals come to an end.

If they switch, because of the higher rate - assuming they can - it will help NR run down the business more quickly and reduce the taxpayers' liability which is not a bad thing in a plummeting housing market.

Kezza25_2

I'm an NR customer and, as others have said, it is not right that Gordon B is pressuring other banks and building societies to cut the full 0.5% but they haven't done this at NR.

NR are well ahead on the debt repayment to the government so 'saving the taxpayer' is not really applicable.

baby_boomer

I don't follow that at all.

Being up to speed on the debt repayment programme is a good thing, but not the only thing that Sandler has to keep an eye on. The taxpayer also has a "stake" in the losses on the worst performing mortgages still left at NR.

The vast majority of lenders haven't cut mortgage rates, and NR has particular problems because of its lending policy - so it's hardly surprising that it isn't leading the way down.

Gorgeous_George

The main thing to consider, IMHO is that keeping rates just 0.1% higher than necessary will lead to more repossessions . For every 0.1% extra, there will be more repossessions.

With repossession there will be many houses left empty while NR try to sell.

With repossession there will be families needing the Council to house them. In houses that the Council do not have.

With repossession there will be one more bit of pressure on the rental market.

With repossession there will probably be a family claiming benefits to pay a private LL rent.

With repossession there will more suicides.

With repossession there will more marriage/relationship break-ups.

With repossession there will more kids in broken homes. Potentially more trouble in a few years' time.


I think it is the most blindingly obvious decision never to have been taken.

KEEP THE NORTHERN ROCK SVR NO HIGHER THAN ITS NEAREST COMPETITOR.

Those who can leave NR will still leave to more attractive rates eleswhere.

Those who cannot leave will have a fair, fighting chance of paying their mortgage without feeling as if the Government blame them for the position that they are in.

I usually have little sympathy for debtors but if the Government can help those who invested in foreign banks, then they can bloody well help NR customers who bought products from a bank that the Government failed to regulate.

GG