MSE News: Mortgage blow as building society hikes SVR

danmck_2

This has got very heated hasn't it? Can we play nicely?

I don't doubt Ruth's point that the FSA have approved this, or to be precise are 'satisfied the Skipton has acted fairly' (I've got a letter that says this from a complaints handler, corporate services) but this seems to be a red herring anyway (and ever was). I do however doubt the power attributed to the FSA, they, like every other regulatory body, appear to be nothing more than a paper tiger. This was always going to go to court.

As someone with a LTV of 100%, and likes where I'm living, I won't be leaving the Skipton unless the SVR hits 9 - 10%, so think arguments telling people to move to a better rate ignore the crux of the problem (and no apology for the vested interest here).

So far I've not read anything to convince me that the removal of the guarantee was fair, or that the 1.45% rise was proportionate. I accept this may just be sour grapes.

I can't see how any of this helps the Skipton. If the society wins in court surely everyone with equity will find better deals, leaving a riskier mortgage book and savers to pay for any costs. If they lose they have to pay fees and refund everybody. And they get all the associated bad publicity either way. Does this make sense to anyone?

Thrugelmir

sarahbennett wrote: »

Pretty funny how you spelt Buffett wrong in his quote about ignorance, you have to admit, maybe you have the leverage needed for some interesting results...?

You can tell a lot about people's character when they resort to "playground jibes". Pretty pathetic for what is a serious topic of discussion on supposedly an adult forum.

Thrugelmir

danmck wrote: »

As someone with a LTV of 100%, and likes where I'm living, I won't be leaving the Skipton unless the SVR hits 9 - 10%, so think arguments telling people to move to a better rate ignore the crux of the problem (and no apology for the vested interest here).

So far I've not read anything to convince me that the removal of the guarantee was fair, or that the 1.45% rise was proportionate. I accept this may just be sour grapes.

I can't see how any of this helps the Skipton. If the society wins in court surely everyone with equity will find better deals, leaving a riskier mortgage book and savers to pay for any costs. If they lose they have to pay fees and refund everybody. And they get all the associated bad publicity either way. Does this make sense to anyone?

Thanks for a well rounded practical post. You sum it up very well. Those that are screaming the loudest have good reason to. One suspects that there are a considerable number of borrowers with multiple mortgaged properties. Where the impact of the rate increase has been severe.

As for the average borrower the court fees are unlikely to compensate for any mortgage interest saving in the time frame. As BOE rates rise in the future then Skipton will normalise and be able to reinstate its 3% above BOE rate.

howardtheduck

"As for the average borrower the court fees are unlikely to compensate for any mortgage interest saving in the time frame."

---

I take it you're unaware of "costs follow the event"?

Costs follow the event - An award of costs will generally flow with the result of litigation; the successful party being entitled to an order for costs against the unsuccessful party.

Now why would the court fees be unlikely to compensate for any mortgage interest saving in the time frame given that that success will result in entitlement to costs (including court fees)?

(IANYL)

sarahbennett

Thrugelmir wrote: »

You can tell a lot about people's character when they resort to "playground jibes". Pretty pathetic for what is a serious topic of discussion on supposedly an adult forum.

Now where's your sense of humour? It is funny, it's a joke! Laugh, and lighten up a bit, please.

And why oh why don't you just correct the spelling on your signature? There is nothing wrong with admitting a mistake, nothing wrong with being pulled up on an error, it's not a dig on you, it's just very funny, if it were me I'd just correct the spelling when it had been pointed out to me. It is, you're right, supposed to be an adult forum but it does not work well if you keep repeating the same unsubstantiated points, despite being given solid arguments, and even evidence to the contrary. You want to believe there is just one "t" in Buffett, this is symptomatic of all your contributions to this debate. You want to believe Skipton are right and the borrowers are wrong in this case. You want to do so because, I'm guessing, you are a Skipton saver who selfishly thinks that shafting the borrowers may confer on you some kind of petty monetary reward. Correct me if I am wrong, please, why do you want to believe that Skipton's behaviour is acceptable? And why do you want to deter borrowers from taking legal action against the Society?

sarahbennett

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Those that are screaming the loudest have good reason to. One suspects that there are a considerable number of borrowers with multiple mortgaged properties. Where the impact of the rate increase has been severe. As for the average borrower the court fees are unlikely to compensate for any mortgage interest saving in the time frame. As BOE rates rise in the future then Skipton will normalise and be able to reinstate its 3% above BOE rate.

It does not strike you people may not accept having their own money taken from them wrongly, even if in small amounts they can absorb? Your contempt for borrowers is clear.

Your belief that borrowers have had it too good for too long, and should now have their agreements ripped up so others may benefit blinds you from seeing the reality that this is not a rightful, rebalancing action, but one of theft. You'd like to gloss over the theft bit like you gloss over the t in Buffet, it's pointed out to you, and you are given all the evidence, but you still maintain the same position regardless.

You ignore the fact that court fees are paid by the losing party. And that by removing the guarantee unchallenged Skipton will be able at its unfettered discretion to raise SVR interest rates to 8%, 14%, 50%, 200% or even more, on those who are simply not able to obtain another mortgage product. You say Skipton will be able to reinstate their guarantee as base rates rise (though they are not saying that they will) but you give no evidence as to why they cannot stick to the guarantee as they promised with the base rates low, or why they put no floor on their guarantee if they had expected to impose one? Nor do you provide any meaningful rebuttals for any of the very valid points made throughout this thread. All we've asked you for is a bit of substantiation, and you have given us none. Now if you'd like me to treat you like an adult, please behave like one, put forward meaningful arguments, substantiate them, add to the debate, instead of showing your contempt against the clearly wronged party as expressed in your expression "screaming the loudest."

Is that how you would describe people who have been battered? raped? stabbed? robbed? mugged? I'm thinking perhaps it is, if you felt that some benefit were to come to you because of it... You certainly seem to have no problem with the robbing bit...

Dan_1976

Is this really still going on like this!!!

I would say though if you cant afford the new hike you borrowed to much!

MarkyMarkD

sarahbennett wrote: »

You say Skipton will be able to reinstate their guarantee as base rates rise (though they are not saying that they will) but you give no evidence as to why they cannot stick to the guarantee as they promised with the base rates low, or why they put no floor on their guarantee if they had expected to impose one?

I can't believe you keep repeating things which you know are incorrect.

Skipton HAVE said that they will reinstate the link when they are able to.

Skipton_website wrote:

Whilst we are not under any contractual obligation to do so, we will voluntarily reintroduce the ceiling when exceptional circumstances have ceased to apply.

I have previously pointed out that Skipton BS itself is losing money - a lot of money - and that this is not sustainable. Surely that is "why they cannot stick to the guarantee". And they didn't "promise", they promised "subject to exceptional circumstances".

Skipton didn't put a floor on their guarantee, because they covered that with a more general "exceptional circumstances" clause. It would be pretty bonkers to exclude all "exceptional circumstances" and then define a few specific ones as well!

sarahbennett wrote:

With good reason I don't believe it to be true. Why can't you give a name if they definitely knew what they were talking about, or have no reason to lie about it? How without a name or a position can we test your assertion? Nobody has pointed to any evidence of prior FSA collusion with the Skipton, none at all. I'd believe it were true if someone gave me any evidence. Can you not at least hint as to the position of the person you spoke to Ruth? (and I will investigate further)

Perhaps Ruth would get sacked if she leaked this information? I've previously pointed out that there is absolutely, categorically, no way that the FSA would allow a lender to do something as big as this without prior discussion and acquiescence. Your belief that Skipton simply either:

(a) thought they'd try it on and see what the FSA did; or
(b) asked the FSA and then ignored what they said

is totally laughable.

Believe, if you like, that the FSA didn't know about it, or did know and said "no" but then got ignored. But believe that and you are a fool.

If the FSA had not known, or had been ignored, it would have publicly admonished Skipton as soon as it came out, as it did with Halifax who were minded to do a similar thing and then didn't - but in Halifax's case it publicly admonished it before it had even done it!

The FSA's position has changed - because Skipton is a mutual, and it's too big to be allowed to fail. Halifax could be rescued - and was, by Lloyds Banking Group. Nobody is likely to rescue Skipton.

howardtheduck

No MarkyMarkD, I believe the FSA is quite aware of the maxim "Fiat justitia ruat caelum".

Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with it?

(IANYL)

howardtheduck

"I can't believe you keep repeating things which you know are incorrect.

Skipton HAVE said that they will reinstate the link when they are able to."

---

MarkyMarkD,

Skipton HAVE also said:

""We have pledged our residential standard variable rate will NEVER (emphasis added) be more than 3 per cent above base rate and, even with this at its lowest level for 315 years, we will honour our promise." (Stated by Skipton CEO David Cutter on 4th March 2009)

I can't believe you keep repeating things which YOU know are incorrect!


Honestly, if you, Vigilant22, or Thrugelmir were facing me in court, you'd only have to open your mouths to enable me to win my case. Whilst ignorance may be no defence in law you could try pleading mental retardation or possibly even try bringing yourself within the M'Naghten Rules? Good luck with that.

(IANYL)