SVR rises higher and higher whilst base rate lowers

islay_2

Am I the only one who feels the mortgage lenders are pulling a fast one! They legally have to advise you on their inital offer that when your deal expires then your looking at 2-2.50% SVR (yes, that was on the paperwork two years ago). But now that your in the SVR -they move the goal posts. B OF Scot SVR is 4.35 ABOVE B Of E base rate! I think we should all get together and challange this............. what do you think............

brit1234

islay wrote: »

Am I the only one who feels the mortgage lenders are pulling a fast one! They legally have to advise you on their inital offer that when your deal expires then your looking at 2-2.50% SVR (yes, that was on the paperwork two years ago). But now that your in the SVR -they move the goal posts. B OF Scot SVR is 4.35 ABOVE B Of E base rate! I think we should all get together and challange this............. what do you think............

Strongly disagree. Banks need to rebuild their balance sheet and are still taking big loses. A 5% SVR is still very cheap in historical standards.

If you are not happy simply move bank.

redlooney

islay wrote: »

Am I the only one who feels the mortgage lenders are pulling a fast one! They legally have to advise you on their inital offer that when your deal expires then your looking at 2-2.50% SVR (yes, that was on the paperwork two years ago). But now that your in the SVR -they move the goal posts. B OF Scot SVR is 4.35 ABOVE B Of E base rate! I think we should all get together and challange this............. what do you think............

Im with you mate - Accord mortgage company have just raised their SVR :mad: Sorry but the excuse that banks etc are "having a tough time of it" doesnt wash - they created the sorry mess, we've bailed 'em out and they're still dicking us over.
We cant "just move banks" becuase the bottom has fallen out of the housing market and the lenders now want 30 - 50% LTV before you even walk through the door, so the majority on SVR are bloody stuck with their lender :mad:

opinions4u

islay wrote: »

Am I the only one who feels the mortgage lenders are pulling a fast one!

No, you're not.

They legally have to advise you on their inital offer that when your deal expires then your looking at 2-2.50% SVR (yes, that was on the paperwork two years ago).

Their SVR didn't state that rate 2 years ago. It may have stated a link to BofE base rate though. Wording along the lines of "Our current SVR is 2% above BofE base rate" will be what you are referring to. But it doesn't guarantee that link. They can and have given you the statutory notice of changing that link to BofE base rate and are now charging you accordingly.

But now that your in the SVR -they move the goal posts. B OF Scot SVR is 4.35 ABOVE B Of E base rate! I think we should all get together and challange this............. what do you think............

There is little point challenging something that has been done legally.

Banks don't raise their money at the BofE base rate. The BofE base rate does not reflect the risk of mortgage lending in the current market. The BofE base rate does not reflect the losses currently incurred by mortgage lenders.

If you wanted a long term tracker deal, you should have bought one.

Out of interest, you headlined your post:

SVR rises higher and higher whilst base rate lowers

I would hazard a guess that the SVR at the time you took out your loan was around 6% to 7%. If your current rate is lower then the headline is misleading.

_Andy_

islay wrote: »

Am I the only one who feels the mortgage lenders are pulling a fast one! They legally have to advise you on their inital offer that when your deal expires then your looking at 2-2.50% SVR (yes, that was on the paperwork two years ago). But now that your in the SVR -they move the goal posts. B OF Scot SVR is 4.35 ABOVE B Of E base rate! I think we should all get together and challange this............. what do you think............

Nothing to challenge.
You do realise that lenders exist to make a profit?

What next, 'get together and challenge' Tescos for not reducing the price of bread if the cost of wheat reduces?

Wutang_2

_Andy_ wrote: »

Nothing to challenge.


'get together and challenge' Tescos for not reducing the price of bread if the cost of wheat reduces?

Its going to be tough, but I am up for it (can we do wine as well?)

And cheese

Alan_Cross

I'm with the OP.

Both SVR and fixed rates clients have suffered in order to subsidise the wrong decisions lenders took on trackers. Rather than take this on the chin shareholder-wise, they've simply shifted 'where their profit will come from next' to a different set of borrowers.

The question of ERCs comes in here. It's pointless prattling on about 'competition' and starting to buy your loaves from another supermarket if Tesco has been legally allowed to only offer bread with a swingeing penalty clause if you switch to Lidl.

Something is badly wrong - and the so called 'regulator' is staying mighty quiet about it.

_Andy_

Nothing 'badly wrong' about it - the SVRs, unless specifically stated, are just that - variable. If a lender varies the rate there's nothing unethical about that.

theartfullodger

"Free Enterprise"

- Not Free
- Not very enterprising

Gorgeous_George

Wutang wrote: »

Its going to be tough, but I am up for it (can we do wine as well?)

And cheese

Just the hard cheese I guess.

GG

blueberrypie

Alan_Cross wrote: »

Both SVR and fixed rates clients have suffered in order to subsidise the wrong decisions lenders took on trackers. Rather than take this on the chin shareholder-wise, they've simply shifted 'where their profit will come from next' to a different set of borrowers.

The question of ERCs comes in here. It's pointless prattling on about 'competition' and starting to buy your loaves from another supermarket if Tesco has been legally allowed to only offer bread with a swingeing penalty clause if you switch to Lidl.

If you're on SVR, that suggests you've come to the end of your tied-in period, so the question of ERCs wouldn't come in. And if you're on a fixed-rate, you're getting exactly the rate you signed up for - how is that "badly wrong"?