Support for mortgage interest benefit cut by thousands of pounds

olly300

mitchaa wrote: »

Good god, you are seriously picking me up about the 13wk time limit:rotfl:

The plan is still exactly the same though, you can take out a £150k mortgage today, give up your job tomorrow and ISMI will take over after 13wks. Forget about house deposits etc as that is completely irrelevant, if you take out a £150k mortgage then that is exactly what the government will base your claim on.

Big error

You have to be sacked or made redundant to be able to claim JSA or any income replacement benefits. You can't just give up your job like that as the DWP won't pay out for 6-8 weeks as you have deliberately made yourself unemployed. Then your claim for SMI will take another 13 weeks from that date.

mitchaa wrote: »

Too many have had it good too long. 6.08% with a BOE BR at 0.5% and a recession that has brought the country to its knees and ISMI claimants expect these freebies at this level to carry on? There were no complaints about the extra they were receiving but all hell breaks loose when it swings the other way.

I was actually surprised that the government didn't intervene in this matter a year or so ago.

The examples of people I've seen in the media complaining have only been on JSA for about 3 months so they are new claimants.

As yet they haven't shown people who are 60 plus claiming. Though having met people who are in their 60s who were forced onto pension credit when they were 60 even though they were actually seeking and applying for jobs.

mitchaa

olly300 wrote: »

Big error

You have to be sacked or made redundant to be able to claim JSA or any income replacement benefits. You can't just give up your job like that as the DWP won't pay out for 6-8 weeks as you have deliberately made yourself unemployed. Then your claim for SMI will take another 13 weeks from that date.

Not true. As a single parent you can pack in your job and qualify for income support at any time if you have a child under 7. No ifs, no buts, working and being a mother is too tyring, it's not worth it after childcare, there are plenty of reasons.

Your logic works for JSA, not for income support

silvercar

The latest news is that the government wants the interest rate lowered where it is paying the interest. Article in The Times today:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/banking/article2748418.ece

The Government is calling on lenders to cut mortgage interest payments made by the state on behalf of unemployed and low-earning homeowners.
Lord Freud, the Minister for Welfare Reform, urged banks and building societies to voluntarily reduce interest rates for borrowers covered by the support for mortgage interest scheme (SMI), which is designed to help unemployed and low-paid homeowners to meet their mortgage payments.
Under the SMI the Government covers the mortgage interest payments of benefits claimants at a pre-agreed capped rate that is charged by banks at 3.63 per cent.
Some banks charge borrowers considerably more because they signed up to higher interest rate deals. In other cases the interest owed by SMI claimants is less than that figure and claimants can use the excess from the Government subsidy to make capital repayments or to pay off mortgage arrears.
The Government has asked lenders to cap total payments at 3.63 per cent, averaging out the winners and losers in the SMI scheme and giving the state a “bulk buying” discount.
“It’s not right that mortgage lenders are charging high street prices when they are guaranteed bulk payments from the Government,” Lord Freud said. “They borrow money at a reduced rate all the time, so I know there is scope to average winners and losers in a way which is viable to them and would protect claimants against repossession.”
The minister said that he might bring forward legislation should the voluntary approach fail. “I would much prefer to do it through voluntary agreement than through legislation,” he said.

StevieJ

silvercar wrote: »

The latest news is that the government wants the interest rate lowered where it is paying the interest. Article in The Times today:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/banking/article2748418.ece

For a small state non interventionist Tory govt they are meddling quite a lot in the private sector, I say leave the running of private sector companies to those that know how

[Deleted User]

mitchaa wrote: »

Good god, you are seriously picking me up about the 13wk time limit:rotfl:

The plan is still exactly the same though, you can take out a £150k mortgage today, give up your job tomorrow and ISMI will take over after 13wks. Forget about house deposits etc as that is completely irrelevant, if you take out a £150k mortgage then that is exactly what the government will base your claim on.

Too many have had it good too long. 6.08% with a BOE BR at 0.5% and a recession that has brought the country to its knees and ISMI claimants expect these freebies at this level to carry on? There were no complaints about the extra they were receiving but all hell breaks loose when it swings the other way.

I was actually surprised that the government didn't intervene in this matter a year or so ago.

your misinformation on the subject continues....if you "give up" your job you can be sanctioned by the dwp and possibly not get JSA or SMI for upto 26 weeks,and you may not qualify for income based JSA after 26 weeks after cont based if you have a working partner
I think i proved to you elsewhere that average SVR`S are well above the 3.67% the dwp now pay,especially for the longer term unemployed/disabled/sick who havent had the luxury of remortgaging in the last 2 or 3 years.
But please feel free to carry on showing your ignorance on this subject.

mitchaa

woodbine wrote: »

your misinformation on the subject continues....if you "give up" your job you can be sanctioned by the dwp and possibly not get JSA or SMI for upto 26 weeks,and you may not qualify for income based JSA after 26 weeks after cont based if you have a working partner
I think i proved to you elsewhere that average SVR`S are well above the 3.67% the dwp now pay,especially for the longer term unemployed/disabled/sick who havent had the luxury of remortgaging in the last 2 or 3 years.
But please feel free to carry on showing your ignorance on this subject.

The average SVR as it is just now is well below the 6.08%. FACT

I have already been through this, a parent with a child under 7, can quit his/her job today and claim income support tomorrow. This isn't really that difficult to understand

You also state JSA claimants ''can be sanctioned'' Yes they can be but if they have half a brain cell there are ways around giving up work and not being sanctioned. As to remortgaging, why would they have needed to when the SVR has been so low?

As to rights and wrongs, it's probably wrong that some wont have their interest part met but yet then again it is equally as wrong that some have been reducing their capital at the taxpayers expense over the last 20mths or so.

As I stated before, be grateful for the benefits you receive. If the state were supporting me, I'd at least show a little appreciation and stop the whinging.

olly300

mitchaa wrote: »

The average SVR as it is just now is well below the 6.08%. FACT

The average SVR is 4.5%

mitchaa wrote: »

I have already been through this, a parent with a child under 7, can quit his/her job today and claim income support tomorrow. This isn't really that difficult to understand

They are going to have fun when the government changes the rules to 5 or the kid has their 8th birthday.

Sorry I was listening earlier on the radio to a woman who had a kid under 7 who lost her job. She was trying to get help with childcare and mortgage payments so she could work part-time first then full-time. She was told there was no help available for her.

mitchaa wrote: »

You also state JSA claimants ''can be sanctioned'' Yes they can be but if they have half a brain cell there are ways around giving up work and being sanctioned.

I've heard lots of complaints about the Job Centre some of the most recent ones are about forcing people back into work they don't want to do.

mitchaa wrote: »

As to remortgaging, why would they have needed to when the SVR has been so low?

True fixed rate mortgages tend to be higher than 4.5% unless you have loads of equity plus the cash to pay the fee to change your mortgage something you won't have are on SMI.

mitchaa wrote: »

As to rights and wrongs, it's probably wrong that some wont have their interest part met but yet then again it is equally as wrong that some have been reducing their capital at the taxpayers expense over the last 20mths or so.

It's not the people who are claiming it's fault it's the government's fault.

They pay people different amounts anyway on SMI so actually asking the mortgage companies to calculate the actual monthly amount they need to cover the interest payments wouldn't be hard.

mitchaa wrote: »

As I stated before, be grateful for the benefits you receive. If the state were supporting me, I'd at least show a little appreciation and stop the whinging.

?? I'm not on benefits.

carolt

olly300 wrote: »

The average SVR is 4.5%


They are going to have fun when the government changes the rules to 5 or the kid has their 8th birthday.

Sorry I was listening earlier on the radio to a woman who had a kid under 7 who lost her job. She was trying to get help with childcare and mortgage payments so she could work part-time first then full-time. She was told there was no help available for her.

Of course she can get help - you don't have kids, do you?

She will get 80% of childcare costs covered under current rules. That's not nothing.

I've heard lots of complaints about the Job Centre some of the most recent ones are about forcing people back into work they don't want to do.

Tough. Lots of us in work do jobs we dislike to pay the bills. That's life. It would be lovely if everyone in the world could only ever do jobs that were stimulating, fulfilling, well-paid and lead on to great careers - but the reality is (a) that the less fun jobs need doing too, and (b) that those of us who don't rely on benefits ie other taxpayers to pay for us, have to pay the bills.

If everyone only did jobs they liked, the economy would collapse immediately.

True fixed rate mortgages tend to be higher than 4.5% unless you have loads of equity plus the cash to pay the fee to change your mortgage something you won't have are on SMI.


It's not the people who are claiming it's fault it's the government's fault.

No it's not - no-one made them take out a mortgage without taking out appropriate insurance or working out what would happen if interest rates went up.

Why is it always someone else's fault?

They pay people different amounts anyway on SMI so actually asking the mortgage companies to calculate the actual monthly amount they need to cover the interest payments wouldn't be hard.


?? I'm not on benefits.

You may not be on benefits, but given the very biased nature of your posts, I assume you must receive SMI.

silvercar

If we are talking about unfairness. The Time article says the government will bring in legislation if necessary so that the mortgage interest rate drops to 3.63% of someone is claiming SMI. All to avoid repossession. So if you are out of work on benefits, your mortgage deal doesn't count and you can have a lower rate instead. Whereas if you pay the mortgage yourself, you get the deal you have signed up to.

"It’s not right that mortgage lenders are charging high street prices when they are guaranteed bulk payments from the Government,” Lord Freud said. “They borrow money at a reduced rate all the time, so I know there is scope to average winners and losers in a way which is viable to them and would protect claimants against repossession.”
The minister said that he might bring forward legislation should the voluntary approach fail. “I would much prefer to do it through voluntary agreement than through legislation,” he said."

olly300

carolt wrote: »

You may not be on benefits, but given the very biased nature of your posts, I assume you must receive SMI.

My posts aren't bias they just have a different world view to yours.

There is a sector of society who can't take out mortgage insurance for unemployment if the work dries up or their employer/large client goes bust.

I've spoken to small businessmen who have lost everything in previous recessions including their house due to loans secured on it plus those who manage to save their homes. The fact that they could get SMI played apart but most of them got other work before it kicked in.

Oh and which part of "I am not on any benefits" do you not understand? SMI is a benefit.