Let's Lobby GMAC to reduce their SVR

thebigboss_2

Quality link Mort, thanks

Mort_Gage wrote: »

Some have, some haven't. See this post for details.

Good luck with your 'campaign' (although I think your time would be better spent looking for another mortgage deal rather than lobbying GMAC).

feisty1

thebigboss wrote: »

Fair enough, I'm CeMAP and CeFA qualified,

What are your qualifications directly related to the subject matter keiran1979 and fiesty1? my use of grammar and score some points

CertPFS (MAQ)............

quote: my use of grammar
quote:I 'm CeMAP and CeFA qualified, :rotfl:

I would like to see yr ROS's!! :rotfl:

thebigboss_2

Thanks for confirming your fixation with the trivial

payless

If title was .. force lenders to reduce SVR you may have a better discussion

bbc sites shows lenders current SVR ..

could be argued that some lenders with a "cleaner" book be looked at first .

If lobbying I would say SVR should be tiered based on original application ( unless contractually set)

ie
Prime ( normal residental - taken as standard - ie clean credit , income proved - or at least taken on on same basis as this - if lender ignored small credit issue or fast track when proof was available ) say max 2.5% over base

then extra loading for self cert , over 100% original lending , sub-prime credit

thebigboss_2

Fair point payless, I would say that 2.5% over base with the original loadings for sub prime, 100%, self cert etc is reasonable.

The disparity in lender's cuts is what rankles most people though some would argue that it's open market trade and you make your choice. However post "sale" changes in terms take a lot of choice out of the equation and leave some consumers vulnerable to the "let's sit tight and recoup" mentality of some lenders.

Thanks for posting genuine debate focused on the issue.

dunstonh

To be honest, if you are a high risk borrower you should expect high risk rates and that is what you have here.

I dont see why a lender that caters for the high risk should be expected to give rates that are best suited to the low risk.

The disparity in lender's cuts is what rankles most people

Thats because they dont understand how the rate is calculated and the reasons behind it. The assumption that just because the boe base rate goes down, their mortgage should go down is an incorrect one.

payless

missing bbc link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7711689.stm

which shows lenders svr + the comment that only 8% of mortgages are on SVR - trouble is whilst some of the trackers are term deals and some tracker and fixed deals revert to a tracker based product - most will sooner or later revert to lender SVR

ILW

thebigboss wrote: »

Fair enough, I'm CeMAP and CeFA qualified,

:beer:

And you have a sub prime mortgage?

payless

I do think lenders should have to answer to how they set SVR , to ensure they are treating customers fairly - although this should apply to all lenders .

I'm not happy that Halifax SVR is 3 above base ( my fixed rate ending soon with them had a SVR being 2% above statement - although with a get out clause for them )

Due to current market conditions ( LTV and my current income levels) I also will find it hard to remortgage when fixed rates expires.

that said - 4% on my mortgage is nothing compared to what they ( LBG) are
paying for the money input via preference shares .....

jamesd

thebigboss, high risk borrowers are the ones who primarily caused the financial crisis we're in by defaulting.

It's entirely reasonable for lenders to high risk customers to keep a significantly higher rate than others to provide for their increased default risk. That may help to avoid making the problems in the system worse.

No reason for high risk borrowers to like this, but it is what should be expected from prudent lenders who are making sensible provision for their bad debt risk.