Northern Rock cut a scandalous 0.15% from Nov 1st

Dylanwing

I can't quite work out why repossession is 'good for the taxpayer'. OK, as a last resort, but keeping people in their property must be better - In most cases, the sale will not cover the mortgage debt, giving an instant loss, then the Government, via Councils, has to deal with homelessness. Add to that the possibility of family breakdown, and the financial and social costs soar. The best way would be to take ownership of the property, then rent it back, saving much misery, and a welcome step in replenishing the social housing stock. Oh, and end the Right to Buy scheme, another of Thatchers disasters!

Gorgeous_George

I agree with most of that Dylanwing. The exception is where you suggest renting the property back to the former owners. I prefer that the house is added to the Council's stock and rented to the most needy family.

GG

Dylanwing

Perhaps I am cynical about the Waiting List, as rather too many houses locally go to teenage chavs with baby, who seem to know when properties are available, and produce the letter allegedly evicting them from parental home at exactly the right time. As I found out about 10 years ago, social housing is not available for 'Hard-Working Families' in need. And if renting privately, having children or pets severely limits your choice.
I admit my scheme has flaws, and it may need a large element of discretion, rather than rigid blanket rules - It will be abused, but whatever scheme you have, that will happen.

Gorgeous_George

Ok, I'm convinced. You are right.

Let the repossessed keep their homes.

GG

baby_boomer

Let the government nationalise all the banks and let everyone keep their homes.

Sort out the tab later.

And why stop at the banks? The government could help out with other industries in trouble like the housebuilders, invest in millions of new homes and sort out the council housing problem while they're at it.

What about hard-pressed Indian restaurants. A little cash injection could spruce up any tired decor.

Und so weiter. Where do you draw the line once you're on the slippery slope? [Ugh!]

SouthCoast

What about the Northern Wreck savers who have had their interest rates reduced by more than .5%?

MPD

SouthCoast wrote: »

What about the Northern Wreck savers who have had their interest rates reduced by more than .5%?

If you want a better rate of interest try Iceland:rolleyes:

NR is not being run as a competitive bank, that is part of the conditions the government imposed to bail it out.

baby_boomer

Not quite true.

It agressively went after savings until it breached its limits. The BSA was hopping mad on behalf of building societies.

Savers would now kill for those 7.5% five year fixed rate bond. In time that'll be the best savings offer made by a bank for a century!

stradlinho

Noz wrote: »

I very much do get it.

Northern Rock hasn't turned into a charity overnight. A cut has been passed on, but there's no obligation to do so. NR is purposely trying to move mortgages away from them, making them an attractive proposition isn't going to achieve that. The message is very clear, NR do not want mortgage business.

If that is the case why are NR offering competitive deals to NEW customers.

You know nothing

Dylanwing

Baby Boomer - Totally agree about Indian Restaurants. Some need new Flock wallpaper and most definitely need some new muzak!
Judging by your sarcasm, you have never faced losing your home, be assured that it is a nightmare. I came close, Council didn't want to know, so private renting would have been the only option, and so few allowed kids and pets.
The point I was making is that this measure would actually be cheaper in the long run, and better for Society as a whole, don't believe the Wicked Witch, Society IS important. It's not about 'letting people off', it's about looking at solutions that avoid re-possession, if possible. If we do get mass repossessions, I'm not sure if we will end up with private landlords coining it in (As in the £12,000 a Month case in the Press recently), or Tent Cities as in the US - Either will be far more expensive than a Government Buy-back and rent option.