Mum-to-be stuck with 5.29% SVR - help!

[Deleted User]

Strange the the OP hasn't been back. I'm beginning to think she was hoping for a different sort of answer.

Something along the lines of "We'll all chip in to pay your mortgage off, love, don't you worry about it" perhaps. :think:

suburbanwifey

andieb1972 wrote: »

This is my first post so please bear with me.
I'm a pregnant mum-of-one whose fixed-term mortgage with UCB Homeloans expires this month. It's timely because the government have slashed the rates of my Support for Mortgage Interest (SMI) from 6.08% to 3.63% this month also. I am in receipt of this due to being on Income Support while I raise my family. Before I had my baby I was not on benefits and I have never missed any mortgage payments in 14 years (6 of which were with UCB).
Now UCB have put me on their Standard Variable Rate (SVR) of 5.29% which is WAY higher than I was expecting and means my SMI payments won't cover my mortgage (which is interest only). I seem forced to accept this outrageous rate as I am under the impression I am unable to switch lenders while receiving Income Support.
(My partner has his own property and cannot move due to childcare commitments from a previous relationship. So he is 'around' but unable to live with me or contribute financially.)
I find it so frustrating that if I was still working I would have my pick of the market but now I am stuck with the extortionate 5.29% (Their fixed rate products had even higher rates!) :mad: All I'm asking is for a rate closer to the 'Average Mortgage Rate' which the government are now using to determine SMI payments.
Does anyone have any experience of remortgaging while on benefits? If I have to stay with UCB, do I have any options other than giving in and paying the 5.29% indefinitely?
This stress is NOT helping my pregnancy.
I can imagine many other benefit recipients being stung by this too.

You poor girl. You come on here asking for help and all anyone does is tell you that your SVR is good and that the government shouldn't be funding your mortgage interest!

I read an article in national newspaper a few weeks ago whereby a single mother, with 5 children and on benefits (who'd have guessed it!) was paying for plastic surgery as she had so much money, due to all her benefits!

Ok, so its fine for the government to pay rent (extortionate rates at times) to private landlords who are getting the government to pay for their mortgages and thus their investments by paying benefit claimants rents, but its wrong to pay the mortgage interest of someone who worked all their lives prior to having a child and who bettered themselves by buying their own home? :mad: :mad: grow up people!

This lady has every right to get her mortgage paid by the state whilst she is at home being a good mum to her child. Sounds like her OH is a waste of space (sorry OP, just my thoughts on a man who fathers a child but doesn't provide for it or the child's mother) and this lady is doing her best to stay in her home and provide a life for herself and her children.

So, its ok to provide for all the foreigners who have flooded and drowned out benefit system is it? but not this lady....its ok to fund layabout men who live off the system due to drinking too much or taking drugs? I can think of many scroungers who do not deserve the support this state happily hands out to them, people in private homes who have had a change of circumstances (redundancy etc) are the ones that SHOULD be helped! They are the workers usually in our society, the achievers, the people who bring up their children to be balanced, hard-working individuals...I see no logic in this lady having to leave HER home, to live in an over-priced rental home on a 6 month lease, that lines the pocket of greedy landlords and costs her a fortune as she has to move every 6 months - bad for her, bad for children.

The one benefit that should not have been cut is mortgage interest....this lady isnt a scrounger, she a woman who has been deserted by the father of her child (financially at least) and has been left to struggle. Moving her into rented accommodation is not the way to go!

And yes, I do think her SVR is extortionate...bank base rate is on the floor, the lenders are taking the mick with some of the SVR's they are charging people.....its the lenders and the banks that caused this mess remember, yet its the general public who are taking all the hits! :mad:

I agree with this lady's post entirely and feel sorry for her that you are all telling her to sell up and go into rented accomodation. Why the hell should she? Before you all respond, see my earlier points as to why she should not!

Shame on you Govt. for attacking people who did do well and buy their own home, which is what you wanted Govt. isnt it" as you stopped building council houses, created waiting lists for council homes with thousands waiting without a hope in hell of ever getting housed. Are you all suggesting that the buy-to-let landlords are the true ones who deserve to be made richer by this countrywide mess?

*hugs* to you OP, I hope a miracle happens for you and you can stay in the home you worked so hard to get! unlike most claimants who rot for life on the system that until now has allowed them to happily do this.

Brock_and_Roll

I wonder how many people out there were getting SMI at 6%....given that their mortgage interest rate is likely to be much less than that, its a wonder why anyone bothers to go out to work when you can stay at home with your lodgings fully paid + more.

It only goes to show what lengths recent governments have to to to try and to prevent a crash in house prices by fiddling in the market - and now we see some of the social and economic effects of this intervention.

Finally it just goes to show what complete disconnect has occured that some thinks that a mortgage rate of 5% on an interest only basis for someone on their own on benefits is "outrageous". Presumably people these days have no idea of what the long term average is.....

suburbanwifey

Deleted_User wrote: »

Strange the the OP hasn't been back. I'm beginning to think she was hoping for a different sort of answer.

Something along the lines of "We'll all chip in to pay your mortgage off, love, don't you worry about it" perhaps. :think:

How ridiculous! Of course she didn't want that response, goodness me! She wanted an answer as to how she could re-mortgage and if it was possible or not. Her question is quite clear to me! Instead, you all launch an attack on her for being pregnant and living in her own home!

So you think its better for the government and the benefit system to line the pocket of a buy-to-let landlord by paying HIS mortgage, rather than paying HER mortgage interest do you? That's logical, not!

[Deleted User]

suburbanwifey wrote: »

This lady has every right to get her mortgage paid by the state whilst she is at home being a good mum to her child.

No she doesn't. She has every right to receive some support from the state. She doesn't have the right for the state to effectively buy her a house. UCB are a specialist lender, reflecting higher risk mortgages. That's why their rates are going to be higher.

The state does not exist to fund everyone's mortgage, regardless of the cost.

She has options - she just doesn't want to take them.

[Deleted User]

suburbanwifey wrote: »

So you think its better for the government and the benefit system to line the pocket of a buy-to-let landlord by paying HIS mortgage, rather than paying HER mortgage interest do you? That's logical, not!

No. I think it's better that the government doesn't say "We'll pay 100% of your mortgage, regardless of cost".

suburbanwifey

Deleted_User wrote: »

No. I think it's better that the government doesn't say "We'll pay 100% of your mortgage, regardless of cost".

Great! so it should cost taxpayers even more by moving her into rental accommodation thereby paying the mortgage of a buy-to-let landlord!

Great idea...line his pocket instead. :mad:

[Deleted User]

Sigh. Ok. I change my mind. Let's pay unlimited mortgage amounts.

suburbanwifey

Wherever she lives - her own home that she bought or a buy-to-let landlords house (that he benefits from the mortgage being paid by the state) she has to live somewhere!

This government made it financially more viable for lots of people to not get married....a nation of single parents...they have to live somewhere and wherever they live it costs workers who do have to pay for them.

Maybe they should bring back a decent married man's tax allowance, then it would be an incentive to get married, do things as they should be done and have fathers support their children, rather than single mothers expecting the state to.

suburbanwifey

Deleted_User wrote: »

Sigh. Ok. I change my mind. Let's pay unlimited mortgage amounts.

We do anyway! can't you see? be it to buy-to-let landlord or home-owner, the tax payer foots the bill anyway...or if she ends up homeless, the kids go into care and that costs the tax payer anyway....keeping her in her own home is the cheaper and better option...she has more incentive to get a job as soon as her kids are old enough if she lives in her own home, rather than rental rubbish that someone else owns and creams off the state for.