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

suburbanwifey

Deleted_User wrote: »

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.

Ok, if she doesn't have the right to have the state buy her a house (how are they buying it? they paid mortgage interest only, not the captial!) then they should start building council houses again, with security of tenure and fair *affordable* rents...the type of rent that a single parent with children has a chance of being able to pay - a job with enough income to enable her to pay her own rent - national minimum wage is NOT a living wage!

I see you are of the opinion that we should all be working to pay the mortgages of buy-to-let landlords then....I for one do not want to fund them! They are partially responsible for the house price increases to ridiculous levels and why a lot of you out there cannot afford to buy your own home. Lets all make them rich instead, great idea....just what they want. They must all be clapping their hands here.

pjcox2005

Andieb1972 - I'm sorry to hear the difficulties you will be facing and hope something can be sorted, but as others have mentioned, without equity in your property (I assume you haven't if on interest only) then you will struggle to get a lower rate. I'd suggest using the debt free wannabe board to review your current expenses and see if any savings could be made or additional benefits claimed to make up the shortfall.

Suburbanwifey - Appreciate you have your views I just think I, along with others think they are wide off the mark, for example:

"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:"

People need to accept that it's not just the lenders, the general public over extended themselves and happily took on the extra borrowing. GP haven't complained about no tax rises in the past but expect more spent on services, or that the interest rates were cut to maintain house prices.

"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?"

Ignoring the view that all foreigners take the benefits, then yes those with illnesses whether drink, drugs or disability are the ones that need to be supported. Those who have worked and capable in the past of doing so should to a large extent ensure they provide for themselves. It's called saving so you have some protection when difficult times arise.

The country needs to start accepting that it wasn't just the lenders who caused this mess, the general public did as well. They were the individuals who choose to overexpose themselves to debt that the lenders offered. Nobody was forced to take it. The general public were quite happy to listen to the Government tell us boom and bust was over, happy to have tax cuts and expect more services to be provided (in fact Unions are still campaigning against cuts).

"Shame on you Govt. for attacking people who did do well and buy their own home, which is what you wanted Govt. isnt it"

I could be wrong (OP feel free to correct me) but as she is on an interest only mortagage (and by the sounds of it without equity) then no, she hasn't brought her own home. At present the bank have effectively brought it and she is paying rent (in the form of interest to them).

suburbanwifey

pjcox2005 wrote: »

Andieb1972 - I'm sorry to hear the difficulties you will be facing and hope something can be sorted, but as others have mentioned, without equity in your property (I assume you haven't if on interest only) then you will struggle to get a lower rate. I'd suggest using the debt free wannabe board to review your current expenses and see if any savings could be made or additional benefits claimed to make up the shortfall.

Suburbanwifey - Appreciate you have your views I just think I, along with others think they are wide off the mark, for example:

"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:"

"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?"

Ignoring the view that all foreigners take the benefits, then yes those with illnesses whether drink, drugs or disability are the ones that need to be supported. Those who have worked and capable in the past of doing so should to a large extent ensure they provide for themselves. It's called saving so you have some protection when difficult times arise.

The country needs to start accepting that it wasn't just the lenders who caused this mess, the general public did as well. They were the individuals who choose to overexpose themselves to debt that the lenders offered. Nobody was forced to take it. The general public were quite happy to listen to the Government tell us boom and bust was over, happy to have tax cuts and expect more services to be provided (in fact Unions are still campaigning against cuts).

"Shame on you Govt. for attacking people who did do well and buy their own home, which is what you wanted Govt. isnt it"

I could be wrong (OP feel free to correct me) but as she is on an interest only mortagage (and by the sounds of it without equity) then no, she hasn't brought her own home. At present the bank have effectively brought it and she is paying rent (in the form of interest to them).

I would think, but don't know obviously, that she possibly went 'interest only' after she became pregnant. This would be a good idea, keeps the mortgage low whilst she isn't getting the full amount to enable her to pay it.

I agree that if she is interest only, she doesn't own her own home...but if the government cause her to move into a rental property - chances are it will not be a council home as there aren't any available. It will be a private rental, which is a house on a mortgage owned by an individual or a company....her rent will have to be paid if she does this...a lot of buy-to-let people have their mortgages on interest only....so what is the difference? either way it costs the government to pay her rent.

ILW

I cannot see the fairness in the father being allowed to walk away from his responsibilties. Hope the CSA really hammer him for some of our taxpayers money back.

koexelek

I guess Nationwide are keeping the UCB SVR high to try and offset the low 2.5% rate on their own mortgages

Gorgeous_George

suburbanwifey wrote: »

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:

If she pays rent, the taxman takes a share of any profits made by the Landlord (or landlady of course). Probably better for the tax payer than simply funding her mortgage tax-free. This only serves to encourage more people to join the benefits bandwagon.

The party is over.

Another option is to build more social housing (or use caravan parks).

GG

ILW

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

If she pays rent, the taxman takes a share of any profits made by the Landlord (or landlady of course). Probably better for the tax payer than simply funding her mortgage tax-free. This only serves to encourage more people to join the benefits bandwagon.

The party is over.

Another option is to build more social housing (or use caravan parks).

GG

I remember the old post war pre fab estates. I would gues that the build cost of something similar now would be around £25 to 30k per unit. Over a few years would be much cheaper than paying thousands per month in LHA or mortgage interest. Wonder why it is not being considered?

ViolaLass

suburbanwifey wrote: »

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:

I don't buy that it would necessarily cost more - a BTL LL may well be on a lower interest rate, for a start, or have some/more equity. Also, IF the tax payer is lining the LL's pocket, then I dispute that the answer is to line the OP's pocket instead. However, that's a big if.

Besides, the proposal isn't the remove the benefit altogether but to LIMIT it. It just makes sense. If you can't get a mortgage under the interest rate paid by the gov and you can't pay the extra yourself, then why should the government fund it?

BLT_2

pjcox2005 wrote: »

Andieb1972 -

"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?"

Ignoring the view that all foreigners take the benefits, then yes those with illnesses whether drink, drugs or disability are the ones that need to be supported. Those who have worked and capable in the past of doing so should to a large extent ensure they provide for themselves. It's called saving so you have some protection when difficult times arise.

Leaving the aside the 'foreigners taking the benefits' bandwagon which is old and tired, I am at a loss to understand why the taxpayer should fund individuals with self inflicted illnesses such as drink and drugs...disability clearly should be supported.

My main issue with the OP is that whilst claiming benefits she has brought another child into the world without any means of support other than the taxpayer. I have enough trouble supporting mine, I don't want to support hers because her 'partner" (read sh*g buddy as he only seems to appear at weekends and doesn't want to support her) can't be bothered.

I am not sure I agree with your concept of those who get up off their !!!! to work and pay taxes saving to support themselves so that there is more available for alKies and druggies, personally I would leave them to wallow in their own self inflicted misery.

michaels

I am generally in agreement but:

1) If it is cheaper for the taxpayer to pay the OP's mortgage than it would be to pay for her to rent an alternative then I can't see why she should be forced to move. If people are so worried about her possibly benefiting from any HPI then why not make an attachment to any such gains part of the deal when giving mortgage interest support?

2) We do not know how much equity the OP has in her house - if it is low then the mortgage company interest rate sounds reasonable as the lender needs to cover the risk of default. However suppose the OP has 50% equity then the mortgage rate she is being offered reflects the lender profiteering from the fact that she can not remortgage. With a decent equity stake the bank is not taking any real risk and so should not be earning a big premium over the rate available to other borrowers with considerable equity which start at 2.19%. As an example we can not switch water supplier so the amount of profit they can make is regulated.