Nationwide: No More Rate Cuts

mvengemvenge

Running_Horse wrote: »

Exactly.

I knew the terms and conditions when signing up for my Nationwide tracker. Although it would have been impossible to predict rates would fall so suddenly causing the collar to be reached, equally it would also have been impossible to predict rates would fall so suddenly saving me £175 pcm.

I have done very nicely out of the Nationwide being a sensibly run financial institution, and while I would not turn down any further reductions, making companies do things they don't want to do is the surest way to making a loss and having to go cap in hand to Gordon Brown (shudder).

The people to feel really sorry for are those like my workmate who lives frugally with his family to save up, and has seen returns on his savings slashed, because people with mortgages like me are considered more important.

I completely agree that forcing them to lend would be futile in many ways, because they will simply go back to the government for more funds to re-fill their coffers.

However, at the end of the day, most of the banks (generalising) had to be bailed-out by the taxpayer, because the alternative was unbearable for the government. This now sets a dangerous precedent, though, surely? Are they all too important to fail? If they are, they can basically do what they like, with impunity.

[Deleted User]

Yay, they aren't going to collar the SVR, according to the report on the BBC

Roll on 3% SVRs!

Gorgeous_George

Kez100 wrote: »

Absolutely. Savers need to be considered and Nationwide have always been one to look at the whole picture. They went that extra mile for the trackers - dropping when they didn't have to. Now listen to the savers as well. Well done them, I say.

Nationwide are better run because they fought off the carpetbaggers (who were a product of Maggie's generation).

GG

Chumpledina

AHAR wrote: »

If your mortgage deal includes a collar, the rate doesn't have to keep tracking below a certain level. My Nationwide tracker has a 2.75% collar but they've allowed the rate to drop by 0.75% more than they had to. I'm not complaining that I'm currently getting a better deal than I signed up for.

I completely agree. I have a similar mortgage with Nationwide and count myself very lucky that they have ignored the clause in my contract to give me a better deal than that to which I am legally entitled.

neverdespairgirl

chayam wrote: »

A BI OF A CHEEK ON NATIONWIDES PART we paid a high fee to have this set up as a tracker mortgage they carried on incresing when rates were high but are stopping when rates are cut, i though that the whole point of a tracker is to follow BOE rates, pls let me know if I am wrong
:mad:
surely this should not be allowed????

How is it a cheek? Is it not in your key facts document?

If not, you have an argument that they shouldn't enforce it. If it is in there, what are you complaining about?

If you are on a half-decent tracker, you are paying sod all at the moment anyway.

Gorgeous_George

If they can only enforce conditions that are in the Key Facts Document, why bother with the small print?

They should be able to enforce any terms and conditions that were agreed between the two parties. However, whether that is the best way forward for the greater good could be argued.

GG

clobber_2

This thread is mind-boggling.

I've made my can-we-afford-it-back-of-a-fag-packet calculations on an average IR of 10% with a possibility of them going up to 15% for a short-ish period.

In all likelihood we would be able to fix to avoid such a scenario, but having seen middle-class professionals like ourselves being repo-ed in the last recession, it seems prudent to make sure we could work around whatever gets thrown at us.

And you lot are whinging about IR of what - less than 3%?

You're having a laugh.

[Deleted User]

When you buy your house in a market that is adjusted for 5% rates, a rise up to 10% (could be catastrophic) in relation to a 10%->15% rise, as seen in the 90s.

You can blame the over-inflated house prices on interest rates being too low

Running_Horse

mvengemvenge wrote: »

However, at the end of the day, most of the banks (generalising) had to be bailed-out by the taxpayer, because the alternative was unbearable for the government. This now sets a dangerous precedent, though, surely? Are they all too important to fail? If they are, they can basically do what they like, with impunity.

Most of the banks had to be bailed out by the taxpayer...except the Nationwide, who incidentally have rescued a couple of less well run building societies. Gordon Brown has proved he cannot run the economy, so he can keep his incompetence out of my mortgage provider.

Kez100

clobber wrote: »

This thread is mind-boggling.

I've made my can-we-afford-it-back-of-a-fag-packet calculations on an average IR of 10% with a possibility of them going up to 15% for a short-ish period.

In all likelihood we would be able to fix to avoid such a scenario, but having seen middle-class professionals like ourselves being repo-ed in the last recession, it seems prudent to make sure we could work around whatever gets thrown at us.

And you lot are whinging about IR of what - less than 3%?

You're having a laugh.

Its greed, Clobber.

It's in their agreed documentation and they are still moaning. Fixed mortgage payers are fully expected to pay their higher rates per agreement but, oh no, tracker holders should get what they signed too waived. They should shut up and thank their lucky stars they got away with the lower 2% for a while, rather than 2.75%.