People in thier 60's being forced to sell homes.

Graham_Devon

RenovationMan wrote: »

What grand plan? We are talking about one little old lady, not the future of Western civilision. No wonder people are leaving this part of the forum in droves. You're all bonkers.

Conrad first started out by complaining about the fairness of the situation.

I stated fairness to customers is about all customers and about treating all customers equally.

There could be a myriad of reasons the banks are unwilling to treat one old lady as a special case. The facts of the matter are, she has a contract, it's come to an end (we believe) and now some people expect banks to become landlords for an unknown period, with the terms re-written for every individual mortgage.

How many customers does Santander have? How many special case customers could they end up with on their books? How on earth are they supposed to run a business as a bank, when infact they are acting as landlords, unable to reduce theie exposure, unable to end contracts....but able to show thousands of people on differing terms and differing lifestyles?

Come on now. That's not sustainable going forward for any bank. I don't even know how people can argue that this is the way forward to be honest. It would completely cripple any lender.

shortchanged_2

RenovationMan wrote: »

So you think that this little old lady is highly likely to move on from her 'acorn' of not being able to pay off her mortgage to and 'oak' of defrauding a mortgage company and running off with the money?

I mean, really?

I give up Renoman I know you are trying to be your deliberate obtuse best. I am, I repeat I am not referring to this little old ladies individual circumstances.

As I said to you before what you are advocating is the potential opening of a whole new can of worms where people who have agreed to a IO mortgage contract that means they are obliged to pay off the capital at the end of the term don't bother doing so. So where does this all end Renoman?

silvercar

ringo_24601 wrote: »

And only works if you assume the house will go up in value

Given that she bought 25 years ago and already has a lot of equity, that isn't much of an issue.

Graham_Devon

And howcome evicing someone renting if the landlord wants to get more cash, or wants to do whatever he likes with the house, is fine.

Yet this situation is unfair?

The hypocrisy from the VI's stinks.

RenovationMan

Emy1501 wrote: »

The issue is though that no lender will touch her. People are risked as a group rather than as an individual. She also seems to have made no effort to pay any of the mortgage off over the last 15 years and is not making any effort to pay it off now.

I feel for her but her lender is a commercial business and if they do not want to take on her risk at the end of the term they should not have too.

My understanding is equity release schemes etc would be open to her and maybe there is a gap in the market for a lender to step in and take on her type of risk.

Maybe Lenders will need to be clear regarding what will happen if the mortgage is not paid at the end of the term going forward.

I would have thought though that as a group, pensioners are quite a good risk. They have a guaranteed income, they have a lot of equity built up in their homes, they have strong ethics where meeting their obligations are concerned, they have pretty basic financial requirements. Certainly a lower risk than say lending to a young couple with a large mortgage, little or no equity, an expensive lifestyle and the possibility of splitting up and leaving a mortgage neither can afford to service on their own (as we see of often on these boards).

While it's not the ideal to have mortgages than run in perpetuity, sh*t happens sometimes and as long as the bank continues to make a profit and has little or no risk of making a loss then I don't see an issue in helping someone out in this scenario.

I feel that the bank should have asked about the possible shortfall when the lady retired (aged 60?) and put something in place where the balance of the shortfall was paid off a bit at a time over the next 10 years or whatever. To allow the mortgage to run for what, 11 years after her retirement and then turn around and act all surprised and go "Oh, we've just realised that you owe us £100k, can we have it back please" is a pretty poor show.

Jimmy_31

RenovationMan wrote: »

I would have thought though that as a group, pensioners are quite a good risk. They have a guaranteed income, they have a lot of equity built up in their homes, they have strong ethics where meeting their obligations are concerned, they have pretty basic financial requirements. Certainly a lower risk than say lending to a young couple with a large mortgage, little or no equity, an expensive lifestyle and the possibility of splitting up and leaving a mortgage neither can afford to service on their own (as we see of often on these boards).

While it's not the ideal to have mortgages than run in perpetuity, sh*t happens sometimes and as long as the bank continues to make a profit and has little or no risk of making a loss then I don't see an issue in helping someone out in this scenario.

I feel that the bank should have asked about the possible shortfall when the lady retired (aged 60?) and put something in place where the balance of the shortfall was paid off a bit at a time over the next 10 years or whatever. To allow the mortgage to run for what, 11 years after her retirement and then turn around and act all surprised and go "Oh, we've just realised that you owe us £100k, can we have it back please" is a pretty poor show.

Its quite clear you are on the side of the little old woman, because you know full well one day you could be that little old woman.

Can you not get her on the lollipop lady number with you so she can earn a bit more cash to pay her debts.

RenovationMan

shortchanged wrote: »

I give up Renoman I know you are trying to be your deliberate obtuse best. I am, I repeat I am not referring to this little old ladies individual circumstances.

Yes I know, you're constantly on your soapbox and therefore every case is treated the same, no matter what the circumstances. However, when I comment on these threads, I DO comment on the individual circumstances described in threads. This is probably why you keep jumping about in a mad fashion talking about my 'plans for the mortgage market', when I'm actually talking about an individual.

shortchanged wrote: »

As I said to you before what you are advocating is the potential opening of a whole new can of worms where people who have agreed to a IO mortgage contract that means they are obliged to pay off the capital at the end of the term don't bother doing so. So where does this all end Renoman?

See above. I'm talking about a little old lady, you're talking about the whole of everything since 1998.

Graham_Devon

RenovationMan wrote: »

I feel that the bank should have asked about the possible shortfall when the lady retired (aged 60?) and put something in place where the balance of the shortfall was paid off a bit at a time over the next 10 years or whatever. To allow the mortgage to run for what, 11 years after her retirement and then turn around and act all surprised and go "Oh, we've just realised that you owe us £100k, can we have it back please" is a pretty poor show.

Astounding.

You have been arguing for ages now that people should be able to make whatever decisions they like about their mortgages.

You have argued that the removal of self cert and the higher regulation on IO mortgages only serves to create a nanny state, punishing those adults for whom these mortgages work.

But when IO doesn't work, and someones left high and dry, you argue that banks should be checking up on people, which means more regulation, and impose a new set of conditions half way through the mortgage.

The same mortgages you argue should not be be dumbed down by the nanny state.

To me it seems you haven't got a clue which way to turn. You obviously don't truly believe what you write, otherwise you wouldn't be totally contradicting yourself.

The very people calling for less regulation, ask for more regulation when the lax regulation goes "wrong".

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

There could be a myriad of reasons the banks are unwilling to treat one old lady as a special case. The facts of the matter are, she has a contract, it's come to an end (we believe) and now some people expect banks to become landlords for an unknown period, with the terms re-written for every individual mortgage.

Conrad actually wasn't that clear about the facts so we are all basing opinions on facts as we see them.

If the little old lady has equity of £360,000, a solid repayment history, and the means to keep up the repayments then Santander could consider keeping the mortgage going. They lent her the money in the first place - isn't this about lenders as well as borrowers living with the past decsions they've made?

Don't lenders ever check that people still have a repayment plan in place? If not why not?

I can't see the hypocrisy in that and demanding that tenants pay their rent. Our dear old crinkley is paying her mortage but our tenant in arrears isn't. There's a difference.

chucknorris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And howcome evicing someone renting if the landlord wants to get more cash, or wants to do whatever he likes with the house, is fine.

Yet this situation is unfair?

The hypocrisy from the VI's stinks.

I don't particularly think this situation is unfair, if the bank can legally call in the loan and they choose to do so, what's unfair about it? But hasn't Conrad solved this by putting the house in the daughter's name in any case as stated in the OP?

I might question the bank's business sense, as there doesn't seem to be much risk there, but at the end of the day that's their business.