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

DannyboyMidlands

but, where a family buys a home only to live in, should they be exposed to the same risks as the housing gamblers?

Hmmm that depends, are these "hardworking" families?

Consumerist

DannyboyMidlands wrote: »

Hmmm that depends, are these "hardworking" families?

I think you forgot the wink. .

ashleypride

Consumerist wrote: »

But, surely, buying a "home" shouldn't involve any risk beyond that of, say, losing your income in much the same way as with renting.

This is a different argument though, and one I don't particularly disagree with, but in practice I really don't see how it would work.

ashleypride

Consumerist wrote: »

Whilst it's not an easy question to answer, it is, surely, not beyond the wit of the lenders to ask a few more salient questions of a prospective borrower. The gamblers will often own more than one property or will be seeking new mortgages at frequent intervals as they buy and sell.

Why would lenders want to? As long as the borrower can repay, the more debt (ie. money) they can create the more profit they make. This change would have to come from government, who we've seen are happy to prop up the market, to ensure unsustainable growth.

chewback

The_Pixi wrote: »

You mean after I have knowingly or through stupidity signed an agreement that would allow them to do this quite legally?

The banks changed the agreement, I signed an agreement with Halifax that said the reversionary rate wouldn't be higher than 2% above the bank of England base rate. It's now going to be 3.49% above. That's an increase of 74.5% above the agreement I signed. How can that be fair?

Consumerist

ashleypride wrote: »

Why would lenders want to? As long as the borrower can repay, the more debt (ie. money) they can create the more profit they make. This change would have to come from government, who we've seen are happy to prop up the market, to ensure unsustainable growth.

Well, I think I suggested the reason why lenders don't want to be more discerning in para 2 of the post.

So this brings us back to whether "trapped" home-owners (not traders/speculators/gamblers) should receive some help in the current financial climate.

The_Pixi

Consumerist wrote: »

Well, I think I suggested the reason why lenders don't want to be more discerning in para 2 of the post.

So this brings us back to whether "trapped" home-owners (not traders/speculators/gamblers) should receive some help in the current financial climate.

For me this is simple, The answer is no.

I even object to the base rate having been cut to 0.5 for so long, it should all have been allowed to go up the swanny back in 08-09.

The_Pixi

chewback wrote: »

The banks changed the agreement, I signed an agreement with Halifax that said the reversionary rate wouldn't be higher than 2% above the bank of England base rate. It's now going to be 3.49% above. That's an increase of 74.5% above the agreement I signed. How can that be fair?

Lodge a complaint with the relevant bodies then? unless of course you have signed something you didn't, still don't, quite understand in which case it may be fair after all.

Consumerist

The_Pixi wrote: »

For me this is simple, The answer is no.

That was predictable.

ILW

chewback wrote: »

The banks changed the agreement, I signed an agreement with Halifax that said the reversionary rate wouldn't be higher than 2% above the bank of England base rate. It's now going to be 3.49% above. That's an increase of 74.5% above the agreement I signed. How can that be fair?

Are you sure?

By the way, it is still peanuts.

If you didn't budget for for at least 8% you were being rather irresponsible.