MSE News: Support for mortgage interest benefit cut by thousands

lemontart

this confuses me as in the long run they will end up paying more in benefits towards rent as people loose their homes are forced into the rental market and the meeting hte costs of temporary accomodation is no doubt often a lot more than the interest repayments on a mortgage, I am lucky at mo as coming to end of mortage so only 180 a month plus endowment (though I am facing a shortfall when it matures in couple of years) now to pay rent on a 2 bed place in my area is around 350 plus so difference is considerable as renters get more finacial help than house owners. so surely the simple maths of it does not add up.
This is a short sighted cut that will cost more than it saves in the long term

opinions4u

peterbaker wrote: »

With respect, this is rather a silly comment, especially from someone who has both industry experience and MSE experience.

Well it was written in a rather tongue in cheek kinda way. So apologies if it offended.

You are implying that benefit claimants with mortgages should have purchased Mortgage PPI as if that is some universal solution for the public good which I recall is more or less how a naive young Tony Blair described it when he moved the start date for full mortgage interest benefit out to 9 months from the date of first registering for JSA.

I thought it was a previous Tory administration that moved it from 3 months to 9 months?

Mortgage PPI is of course no better than any other PPI as "protection" - the 'successful claim' statistics being scandalously low for all types of PPI - so how else are unfortunate benefit claimants supposed to have protected themselves?

The insurance itself isn't the issue for me. The cover (and what's not covered) is usually fair and reasonable. The amount of premium that gets paid out at the other end in claims is too low. In other words, it's poor value for money.

mbeast

I agree that it looks like it will end up costing the government more in the long run with this new payment method which has now left me stuck between or a combination of 3 options.

1: start paying £300 per month (currently £162 per month and £80 left over for food, cloths etc) myself and then have myself, wife and 3 month old live on @£45 per week after household bills are paid (baby formula alone is @£8 per 5-6 days).
2: stop paying my mortgage and get a repossession order to then be rehoused in some grotty council estate.
3: do #1 but get the house on the market to be sold but be left minus £20k down unless house prices somehow go up @25% in the very near future and then still end up in some grotty council estate.

I guess there's a 4th option if I knew someone else to buy the house so I can private rent it from them until I'm able to somehow be able to afford to pay the mortgage myself which as I mentioned above, if i was allowed the same to my mortgage as I would get to private rent wouldn't be a problem in the 1st place :@.

sapman17

Is there no appealing this might be vvv bad for me.
have to get in touch with braintree dc homeless section again help much appreciated

ILW

mbeast wrote: »

I agree that it looks like it will end up costing the government more in the long run with this new payment method which has now left me stuck between or a combination of 3 options.

1: start paying £300 per month (currently £162 per month and £80 left over for food, cloths etc) myself and then have myself, wife and 3 month old live on @£45 per week after household bills are paid (baby formula alone is @£8 per 5-6 days).
2: stop paying my mortgage and get a repossession order to then be rehoused in some grotty council estate.
3: do #1 but get the house on the market to be sold but be left minus £20k down unless house prices somehow go up @25% in the very near future and then still end up in some grotty council estate.

I guess there's a 4th option if I knew someone else to buy the house so I can private rent it from them until I'm able to somehow be able to afford to pay the mortgage myself which as I mentioned above, if i was allowed the same to my mortgage as I would get to private rent wouldn't be a problem in the 1st place :@.

You lost my sympathy when you started going on about grotty council estates. Why should the people in these places be paying for you to stay in your nice area whilst you look down on them.

peterbaker

opinions4u wrote: »

Well it was written in a rather tongue in cheek kinda way. So apologies if it offended.

Ah ... sorry I missed the tone

I thought it was a previous Tory administration that moved it from 3 months to 9 months?

You may be right in that they enacted it but I think it possibly came into effect early in young Tony's reign and I distinctly remember cringing when he talked about how people could buy insurance instead.

The insurance itself isn't the issue for me. The cover (and what's not covered) is usually fare and reasonable. The amount of premium that gets paid out at the other end in claims is too low. In other words, it's poor value for money.

It is very much the insurance that is the issue - the underwriters couched the wordings in such fashion as to to make it easy for them to decline claims. It was always far worse than simply 'poor value for money', which is why PPI reclaiming touts have been having a field day, albeit far too late to offer real help to people who crashed and burned when their claims were declined long before the 'misselling' scandal/bandwagon reached a critical mass.

What a way to run a railroad, eh? Rip-off products disguised as something good, reneged contracts, people hurt, scandal eventually builds impetus, misselling vultures clean up. How many of these scandals have we had now? Far too many.

And then after all is said and done, industry leaders have the gall to write a letter to the Financial Times yesterday like this: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/eb26484e-cb2d-11df-95c0-00144feab49a.html (you'll need to register for free to read it)

Apologies for straying a bit off topic ...

MissMoneypenny

mbeast wrote: »

but from October I'll be getting around £30-£40 per week less which means feeding and clothing the 3 of us on £40 to £50 per week which is going to be impossible .

Here is a website for recipes for feeding a family of 4 for £100 a month.
http://www.cheap-family-recipes.org.uk/
I got the link from another thread today and the poster said the site is from a poster on these boards.

You could also try the DFW board for help with cutting your other household costs.

Thrugelmir

opinions4u wrote: »

. We have SVRs in the mainstream ranging from 2.5% - 4.99%.

A couple of months back, the average SVR across all CML members was 4.64%.

Surprisingly high.

sophievenusdoom

mbeast wrote: »

I agree that it looks like it will end up costing the government more in the long run with this new payment method which has now left me stuck between or a combination of 3 options.

1: start paying £300 per month (currently £162 per month and £80 left over for food, cloths etc) myself and then have myself, wife and 3 month old live on @£45 per week after household bills are paid (baby formula alone is @£8 per 5-6 days).
2: stop paying my mortgage and get a repossession order to then be rehoused in some grotty council estate.
3: do #1 but get the house on the market to be sold but be left minus £20k down unless house prices somehow go up @25% in the very near future and then still end up in some grotty council estate.

I guess there's a 4th option if I knew someone else to buy the house so I can private rent it from them until I'm able to somehow be able to afford to pay the mortgage myself which as I mentioned above, if i was allowed the same to my mortgage as I would get to private rent wouldn't be a problem in the 1st place :@.

I am probably going to sound really harsh here, but you say you were made redundant in Jan 2008, yet you have a 3 month old son? Not wishing to tell you how you live your life, but if I were in the dire situation you are, I probably would have put the baby making on hold until I were a lot more financially sound.

sapman17

sophievenusdoom wrote: »

I am probably going to sound really harsh here, but you say you were made redundant in Jan 2008, yet you have a 3 month old son? Not wishing to tell you how you live your life, but if I were in the dire situation you are, I probably would have put the baby making on hold until I were a lot more financially sound.

you should only try to find ways to help people don't bring up there
things that don't concern you.