Lender forbearance becoming “a sick joke”

Graham_Devon

RenovationMan wrote: »

The trouble lies with those people who don't have families to help them and can't help themselves (i.e. if they were in a hit and run and can no longer work), what do we do with these people, just say 'tough luck'?

If that was the case, they would get DLA, and be on this scheme for the duration. Which no one has taken issue too and has already been covered.

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=55115615&postcount=118

In direct response to you asking the very same question just 2 pages ago.

Yes, and joeskeppi came back with this response (which I also have been coming back with):

Joeskeppi wrote: »

It only pays the interest. I thought having an interest only mortgage was the same as renting?

Which remains unanswered.

RenovationMan

MacMickster wrote: »

As I said in an earlier post, benefits of any kind should be there to support those who are either unable to support themselves (as in your example) and those who have temporarily fallen on hard times.

Much greater support should be given to those who are genuinely UNABLE (rather than merely disinclined) to support themselves.

Exactly, and I don't think too many people would argue differently nor bedgrudge their tax going to deserving cases.

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If that was the case, they would get DLA, and be on this scheme for the duration. Which no one has taken issue too and has already been covered.

So a homeowner in receipt of DLA should get SMI? Or should they be moved out of their house to rented accomodation? I'm getting confused with what you're saying.

Graham_Devon

RenovationMan wrote: »

Yes, and joeskeppi came back with this response (which I also have been coming back with):



Which remains unanswered.

We've discussed this before. You even said yourself you didn't understand why the scheme was setup in such a way.

SMI does NOT only cover the interets. It pays a flat payment at 3.64%, covering capital in 47% of SMI claimant's cases.

On a secondary note, not all SMI claimants are on interest only mortgages.

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

We've discussed this before. You even said yourself you didn't understand why the scheme was setup in such a way.

SMI does NOT only cover the interets. It pays a flat payment at 3.64%, covering capital in 47% of SMI claimant's cases.

On a secondary note, not all SMI claimants are on interest only mortgages.

So 53% don't even get their interest paid, very unfair

Graham_Devon

RenovationMan wrote: »

So a homeowner in receipt of DLA should get SMI? Or should they be moved out of their house to rented accomodation? I'm getting confused with what you're saying.

It's not very confusing. I explicitly stated they would get SMI, it's been discussed already and there is no problem from anyone.

If you want me to explicitly state it a second time, I have just done so.

I'm out for good on this discussion now anyway. it's clear you are just looking for attention and purposely being extremely obtuse. It's become a plaything for you, rather than a discussion on the scheme.

Stevie, you have already trotted out that reply and I gave you the facts and figures. I won't be doing it all over again.

wotsthat

ILW wrote: »

I believe it is what I am saying.
Savings and isurance (self reliance) should be encouraged. At the moment I believe if you have savings then you are not elegible for most of these benefits. What sort of message is that to give out?

A buyer should factor some sort of back up into their affordablity calculations as a matter of course.

Buyers or renters what's the difference?

Self reliance should be encouraged whether people rent or buy.

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

We've discussed this before. You even said yourself you didn't understand why the scheme was setup in such a way.

SMI does NOT only cover the interets. It pays a flat payment at 3.64%, covering capital in 47% of SMI claimant's cases.

On a secondary note, not all SMI claimants are on interest only mortgages.

If you're saying you just want SMI reformed so that it ONLY covers the mortgage interest and that it's capped at the same level as housing benefit then we are both in agreement and I don't know what we are arguing about. Is that what you're saying?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

SMI does NOT only cover the interets. It pays a flat payment at 3.64%, covering capital in 47% of SMI claimant's cases.

I imagine it's calculated using an average mortgage rate to reduce the costs of administering the scheme.

On average the effect will be to pay the interest only. Some people will get capital repaid and some won't. Looking at the sums involved it's going to a few £'s here or there.

This administrative technicality doesn't really detract from the point that SMI is designed to pay mortgage interest and not capital.