Lender forbearance becoming “a sick joke”

wymondham

chewmylegoff wrote: »

(1) SMI covers only upto £200,000 of mortgage and then only for 2 years

(2) SMI can be removed by the govt at any time

anyone whose plan is not to save any money because SMI will be there to help them if they get made redundant is just as much of a moron (in my view, of course) as the people who say that they won't save for their retirement because they see that people who haven't saved receive handouts from the govt.

up to £200,000k is most mortgages i would suspect?? unless in london! 2 years i think is better than most mortage protection products?????

Will Govt remove SMI??, after all they HATE reposession news and seem to want to do anything to stop it, as the silly SMI policy proves...

If i had my time again with a mortgage I would certainly take the chance with SMI rather than pay an insurance company......

ukcarper

ILW wrote: »

So are the majority of mortgage insurance policies a waste of money as the state will pick up the bill anyway?

I believe they pay out sooner and cover your whole mortgage payment not just interest and they are not means testes and as I understand it they will only payout for I year.

ILW

Manadatory insurance could be a good idea.
They do it with cars.

ukcarper

ILW wrote: »

Manadatory insurance could be a good idea.
They do it with cars.

Not for the car iiself only the damage you might cause to others

ILW

ukcarper wrote: »

Not for the car iiself only the damage you might cause to others

As in the taxpayer having to pick up the tab when you cannot pay your mortgage?

ukcarper

ILW wrote: »

As in the taxpayer having to pick up the tab when you cannot pay your mortgage?

We are getting back to the same thing should you not take insurance to cover your rent to stop tax payer picking up the bill.

chewmylegoff

wymondham wrote: »

up to £200,000k is most mortgages i would suspect?? unless in london! 2 years i think is better than most mortage protection products?????

Will Govt remove SMI??, after all they HATE reposession news and seem to want to do anything to stop it, as the silly SMI policy proves...

If i had my time again with a mortgage I would certainly take the chance with SMI rather than pay an insurance company......

well personally i wouldn't pay for mortgage insurance either way, but deliberately not saving money on the off chance that SMI will be available to you if you are made redundant is a lunatic course of action if you ask me.

ILW

ukcarper wrote: »

We are getting back to the same thing should you not take insurance to cover your rent to stop tax payer picking up the bill.

Personally I think that people should budget to pay their own way through temporary upheavals, whether it be rent or mortgage. The current system seems to positively discourage it and particularly with buying to reward just going for the maximum borrowing possible.

chewmylegoff

ILW wrote: »

Manadatory insurance could be a good idea.
They do it with cars.

houses don't tend to go around driving themselves into each other.

personally, if i was in charge of the benefits system, there wouldn't be any SMI, but there also wouldn't be any housing benefit. i don't think the world is ready for my benefits model.

RenovationMan

ILW wrote: »

Personally I think that people should budget to pay their own way through temporary upheavals, whether it be rent or mortgage. The current system seems to positively discourage it and particularly with buying to reward just going for the maximum borrowing possible.

If everyone nudgetted their way through temporary upheavals then we wouldn't need much of a benefit system and so our taxes would be lower and we'd have more each month to put into personal insurance.

Whether those insurance companies would pay out is quite another matter, they certainly seem to have a lot of get out clauses in their policies.