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

DVardysShadow

Conrad wrote: »

That's a good point, and I suspect the FSA would give a mealey mouthed political response along the lines it's up to lenders to interpret TCF.

We will never know until someone with a direct interest actually challenges them, which would be a good thing. I would hope that they would come out with a clear 'this is not what we intended', although I would not be surprised with a handwashing response.

toby3000

Conrad wrote: »

Spot on.

But in the past this was largely a non issue. She would have carried on until death paying I/O and the substantial equity would have repaid the principal.

Why does it matter to anyone else, as long as she's making the interest due and happily living a perfectly ordered life?

Well on that basis you could take out an I/O mortgage aged 21 and just pay the interest for the rest of your life. Why should the rules be completely different if you're over 60? You could live for another 40 odd years, so it's not like the bank is guarenteed it's money in the next 3 years.

Pennywise

Conrad wrote: »

In this case and some others there is a solution - I'm putting into Daughters name[/U]

Unless daughter is living in the house, she'll probably have capital gains tax to pay on the increase in value between the date of transfer and the eventual sale of the house.

No doubt, then you/her will be claiming how unfair the CGT rules are!

ruggedtoast

Maybe Santander are actually running a business and expected that £140k to be available to them on the date Conrad's client contractually agreed it would be; and now actually want her to provide it as and when she promised.

Yes, this is disturbing news indeed.

On the bright side maybe if this happens a bit more then younger people who have been locked out property ownership for years due to bedroom blocking boomers buying places they couldn't afford and then rigging the entire country's interest rate policy so they don't have to pay them back, may finally be in with a chance of buying themselves.

Conrad

kabayiri wrote: »

I'm afraid it's life Conrad. Rules will always affect some people adversely.

A good life is one where people make a difference and challenge the status quo.

If we all shrugged shoulders and laid down in defeat we'd still be living in caves.


This is affecting a lot of people living perfectly happy settled and ordered existences. It's a quirk of regulation that needs addressing.

The FSA need merely allow lenders a definitive green light to allow such mortgages to simply carry on until death where it's clear the mortgagee has been servicing the debt perfectly well.

There is now't fair about forcing people to move home. One day when your'e 75 and cenjoy a supportive neighbour network you might want to reflect on this.

[Deleted User]

Maybe the bank would like its money returned so it can lend it to someone who might actually pay their debts back? I thought you're meant to abide by the terms of your mortgage.

I've recently moved back from IO to capital repayments for precisely the reason that I don't fancy finding £260k when i'm 65

Conrad

toby3000 wrote: »

Well on that basis you could take out an I/O mortgage aged 21 and just pay the interest for the rest of your life. Why should the rules be completely different if you're over 60? You could live for another 40 odd years, so it's not like the bank is guarenteed it's money in the next 3 years.

A fair point Toby, and I see the logic for new applications, but for historic long in existence arrangments I think there ought to be some lattitude.

Again, this is a recent concerted change.
The world doid not end in the past when old folk where quietly allowed to continue on paying thier mortgages, be they I/O ro capital and interest.

DVardysShadow

toby3000 wrote: »

If you're not paying off the mortgage than surely all you're doing is renting from the bank anyway?

I'm not going to shed any tears over people who are "forced to downsize" - if you can't afford to pay for or run a house then you should move.

I think Conrad's case is that she can at least afford to rent the money from the bank. Although I think you have something of a point. I would say that if she had any sense, she would have been paying a bit more than the interest, which would give her a stronger base to argue from

Conrad

ringo_24601 wrote: »

Maybe the bank would like its money returned so it can lend it to someone who might actually pay their debts back?

I've recently moved back from IO to capital repayments for precisely the reason that I don't fancy finding £260k when i'm 65

Even those on C&I are being forced to sell if they are older.

I/O is only a side issue here. The key point is perfectly capable adults are being told they cannot carry on paying thier mortgage.
It's ludicrous.

chewmylegoff

she's got £360,000 of equity according to your post. i'm sure she can find something.

also, the fact that santander are making what you say is an illogical decision in order to minimise the risk of being opportunitistically sued by customers, that's an indictment on the general public / state of the nation as a whole, really, isn't it, rather than the oversight system.

i think you are rather overselling this - her only legal option is not to sell and move away from the area. she could downside and remain in the area, move into rented, or borrow the money from her daughter (which is in substance what you're setting up by the sounds of it). hell she could even sell it to an equity release pirate if she wanted to, since her desire seems to be just to stay there until death.

basically the complaint is that she isn't allowed to continue to pay an IO mortgage with no intention of repaying the capital. it's not really that outlandish that a bank might not really want to make perpetual loans to people who are 69 years old.