MSE News: Mortgage prisoners need help to escape costly loans, watchdog told

ILW

one2escape wrote: »

Cant wait for these people to get a reminder of this when the numbers of bankrupcy case rise dramtically. It is no longer a case of if but when. Im in 80k negative equality and if my rates increase anymore its bankrupcy for me. Who does bankrupcy and repos help? House prices are only go one way now and it aint up.

If you took on a mortgage relying on rates to stay below 5% or so, I would suggest that you were being rather reckless.

silvercar

There is a big difference between repossession and bankruptcy, I wish people would stop thinking that one follows from the other.

Plus banks are only repossessing when people don't keep up with their repayments - if you carry on paying your mortgage you won't be repossessed, even if you are in negative equity. In fact in the 1980s recession people were repossessed when they missed 3 mortgage repayments, nowadays lenders are trying to do far more to help borrowers avoid repossession.

The_Pixi

VT82 wrote: »

This kind of attitude is to be expected from the elderly relying on their savings interest to live. But according to your sig, you've only got £20k in savings. Granted, to some people it's a lot of money, but if savings rates go up by 1% across the board, you'll only be £200 a year (less tax) better off. And the fact that you can save £500 a month means you're hardly struggling. Is £200 a year really enough of a difference to have turned you so heartless and short-sighted over the situation?

I've now got more in savings than in floating rate borrowings, and my pension would be a lot healthier if rates rise, but I can deal with interest rates being low for the good of the economy, which like it or not, means it's ultimately good for you.

I'm not elderly, I'm saving up a deposit.

Your numbers are interesting and I'd argue too low however £200 a year is better off in my pocket than helping out those with self subscribed financial problems, according to those mock up Tax bills enough of my hard earned money is already doing that:)

Short sighted? Being annoyed at having to suffer low savings rates to try and keep people, who took out mortgages more than the cost of the underlying assets, in thier homes! Dear me, it isn't me being short sighted.

The last part of your post is admirable, financially slack in my opinion though.

no_debt

this is my first post all i can say is you got a house .for what you paid for it. for .what you think it was worth its a roof over you and your famileys head so what if its in negifity equity its a home for what you was prepared to pay .

Consumerist

The_Pixi wrote: »

Remember 'we're all in this together'

As long as the "we" doesn't include you, that is.

Consumerist

no_debt wrote: »

this is my first post all i can say is you got a house .for what you paid for it. for .what you think it was worth its a roof over you and your famileys head so what if its in negifity equity its a home for what you was prepared to pay .

Hi no debt and welcome to the forum

What you are saying is true until you can't afford the mortgage repayments and the lender repossesses the house.

If the house is repossessed when you are in negative equity then the lender will hound you for payment of the difference between what you owed and what your former home was sold for.

Thrugelmir

Is this challenging?

Halifax is raising its SVR for 850,000 borrowers from 3.5% to 3.99% on 1 May.

Another 30,000 Clydesdale/Yorkshire Bank customers will see their SVR jump from 4.59% to 4.95%, and 54,000 Co-operative Bank and Britannia homeowners will see their SVR rise from 4.24% to 4.74%, also on the same day.

If a rate at this level is unaffordable then renting would seem a better option. Whilst some people are facing financial difficulty. The majority should be able to overpay even its just a few pounds a month.

The_Pixi

Consumerist wrote: »

As long as the "we" doesn't include you, that is.

Yes I'd rather it didn't include me, after all Mr/Mrs negative equity didn't ask my approval when they took out the mortgage, why should I be financially hindered to help them?

I am already, and I'm quite free to say, that I don't like it, and those that overstreched should not receive any help and we should allow the correct procedure to take place. Mass repossessions and falling house prices that is how people learn, tough but fair.

The quote was ironic, we are not all in this together! 50p tax rate cut Pfft.

ashleypride

The_Pixi wrote: »

Yes I'd rather it didn't include me, after all Mr/Mrs negative equity didn't ask my approval when they took out the mortgage, why should I be financially hindered to help them?

I am already, and I'm quite free to say, that I don't like it, and those that overstreched should not receive any help and we should allow the correct procedure to take place. Mass repossessions and falling house prices that is how people learn, tough but fair.

The quote was ironic, we are not all in this together! 50p tax rate cut Pfft.

Couldn't agree more, and lets be honest, all the people gambling on house prices ever increasing is a major reason why we are in this mess in the first place.

poppy10_2

The_Pixi wrote: »

I think that's something the person who is 'trapped' should have been thinking about when they considered getting themselves a 100% mortgage

But they were "mis-sold" their 100% mortgage, of course