We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
People in thier 60's being forced to sell homes.
Comments
-
She signed the contract, she agreed to the terms, the terms are not unfair, she needs to keep to her side of the deal.
Classic 'computer says no'.
Why wouldn't the bank simply offer a new deal that made them more money? She's a captive customer, has a solid history of repayments and wants an LTV of less than 30%.
Don't Santander like making easy money?0 -
Classic 'computer says no'.
Why wouldn't the bank simply offer a new deal that made them more money? She's a captive customer, has a solid history of repayments and wants an LTV of less than 30%.
Don't Santander like making easy money?
There is a huge difference between easy money and profit. Since we are not in possession of all the facts, we have no idea how 'easy' this is.0 -
Maybe the banks do not want to be classed as some sort of vultures, waiting for people to die as the only way of getting their money back.0
-
Graham_Devon wrote: »Repaying on death, which could be another 40 years, based on todays house value only (which for all we know, in 40 years could be worth 90% less...not likely, but a possibility) is, in my view, asking too much.
Flippin 'eck - and you accuse me of inventing unlikely scenarios!
Apart from house crash award of the day why does she need a mortgage until death? Why not for another 5 years and then review again just to make sure her house value hasn't fallen off a cliff and that the deal is still profitable for the bank?0 -
Flippin 'eck - and you accuse me of inventing unlikely scenarios!
Apart from house crash award of the day why does she need a mortgage until death? Why not for another 5 years and then review again just to make sure her house value hasn't fallen off a cliff and that the deal is still profitable for the bank?
I was making a point about the unknown.
No need to take it quite so seriously. The unknown is just that. Therefore it's not "easy" money. However, if you wish to make easy money, I suggest you speak to conrad and lend this old dear some of your cash for any amount of time she wishes.0 -
Flippin 'eck - and you accuse me of inventing unlikely scenarios!
Apart from house crash award of the day why does she need a mortgage until death? Why not for another 5 years and then review again just to make sure her house value hasn't fallen off a cliff and that the deal is still profitable for the bank?
It seems she has not paid off any capital on the mortgage in the last 15 years and as it seems she is not offering to pay any now I suspect that she only able to meet the interest payments and nothing else. I also suspect that the lender is assuming that if rates go up she will not be able to met even the IO payment.
As said it seems no one will touch even though there is no law saying lenders are not allowed to lend to retired it just seems the guidelines suggest that they should make sure that the borrower can afford to repay.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »No need to take it quite so seriously. The unknown is just that. Therefore it's not "easy" money. However, if you wish to make easy money, I suggest you speak to conrad and lend this old dear some of your cash for any amount of time she wishes.
I've just said there's no need to lend her the money for any period she wishes. Start with 5 years - reduce the risk of the unknown.
Do you honestly think Santander have thought about whether it would be more or less profitable to keep her as a customer? Of course they haven't.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »There seems to be a bit of confusion here.
There will be now...0 -
Did we just witness the birth of the 90% club?This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0
-
Classic 'computer says no'.
Why wouldn't the bank simply offer a new deal that made them more money? She's a captive customer, has a solid history of repayments and wants an LTV of less than 30%.
Don't Santander like making easy money?
Its not exactly easy money if the only way to get the principal back is evict an old woman out of her home or wait for her to die
I'm not surprised they want rid of her sooner rather than later0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards