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!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Mortgage Lenders Move The Goalposts
Comments
-
But if the contract stated something like 'we reserve the right to alter the terms of the agreement in exceptional circumstances' how would this be fair given the huge asymmetry in knowledge between the bank and the borrower over what might be considered an 'exceptional circumstance'?Thrugelmir wrote: »At a point the borrower should either read the full contract themselves or ask their solicitor handling the transaction to explain the finer detail to them.
The contract itself is a fairly standard document. As the FSA is very specific regarding the contents.
People complain about everything if its not in their favour.I think....0 -
But if the contract stated something like 'we reserve the right to alter the terms of the agreement in exceptional circumstances' how would this be fair given the huge asymmetry in knowledge between the bank and the borrower over what might be considered an 'exceptional circumstance'?
The question then would be, how would that be fair in ANY contract.
I don't think it would be a surprise to anyone that 300 year base rate lows are classed ad "exceptional".0 -
But if the contract stated something like 'we reserve the right to alter the terms of the agreement in exceptional circumstances' how would this be fair given the huge asymmetry in knowledge between the bank and the borrower over what might be considered an 'exceptional circumstance'?
No one foresaw the crash of 2008 and the collapse of the interbank wholesale lending market. At the point of the crash this accounted for 52% of all bank lending transactions in Europe, which is the crux of the issue that's now being faced up to.
Providing borrowers with the same lender are treated in a fair and equitable manner, and that the change is demonstrated as being necessary to maintain the solvency of the lender. Then there's no other outcome in reality.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »I don't think it would be a surprise to anyone that 300 year base rate lows are classed ad "exceptional".
Just as 300 year base rate highs around 1990 were classed as exceptional.
But you didn't see millions of mortgage holders claiming they should have the right to break a contract over it....“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
Thrugelmir wrote: »Providing...... that the change is demonstrated as being necessary to maintain the solvency of the lender. Then there's no other outcome in reality.
That's not even a factor.
And that you would even think it is shows me you're clutching at straws. Getting a bit worried about your employer's solvency, no doubt.
Anyway, back to reality, either the terms of the mortgage are legally changeable, or they're not.
If the lender can legally change terms, then they will.
If they can't legally change terms, then they can't.
Their solvency is of no relevance.
If they go under, the bank or building society will be taken over by a stronger one, and the mortgage book will be bought by someone else at a suitable discount to reflect the unchangeable terms in those contracts.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »I suspect a fairly big consumer fightback would be on the way if the major lenders tried it on...
Consumer fightback? That's not the British way. The British way is to whine (using internet fora is OK) and then drop the trousers (or lift the kilt) and take it.1. The house price crash will begin.
2. There will be a dead cat bounce.
3. The second leg down will commence.
4. I will buy your house for a song.0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Just as 300 year base rate highs around 1990 were classed as exceptional.
But you didn't see millions of mortgage holders claiming they should have the right to break a contract over it....
I thought your issue was delinking from the base rate, rather than where the base rate was?0 -
SecondLegDownIsTheBigOne wrote: »Consumer fightback? That's not the British way. .
Oh right.....
I must have just imagined the billions of pounds reclaimed in bank charges and PPI payments then.
“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »I thought your issue was delinking from the base rate, rather than where the base rate was?
I thought your issue was that 300 year lows were so unusual that banks should be able to break contracts over them?
In which case, surely the same thing should have applied for consumers when rates hit 300 year highs?“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »I thought your issue was that 300 year lows were so unusual that banks should be able to break contracts over them?
In which case, surely the same thing should have applied for consumers when rates hit 300 year highs?
If the consumer has their own set of T&C's that lays out that under exceptional circumstances, they are able to change their T&C's with the lenders, then yes, that may have been seen as an exceptional circumstance.
If you are now saying surely the same thing should have applied, does that not answer your question on the legality of where we are today?
This is a pointless discussion though really isnt it? You are just narked.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards