"Thousands" with BOE trackers face mortgage interest rate rise

noodle_doodle

I wonder if I can write to my mortgagors and invoke "special conditions" (i.e. I fancy paying less) whereby I'm lowering the interest rate to 0.1%? If not, why not?

chucknorris

noodle_doodle wrote: »

I wonder if I can write to my mortgagors and invoke "special conditions" (i.e. I fancy paying less) whereby I'm lowering the interest rate to 0.1%? If not, why not?

Of course you could providing you did what the lender did, i.e. get the written agreement of the other party to a clause in that agreement that allows you to do this. But I'm guessing that you didn't do that, so the answer would be no.

dryhat

I find it rather pathetic that these so-called landlords with their "portfolios" would struggle with interest rates of 4% or whatever it is.

What a bunch of jokers.

Soubrette

The issue is wider than just if a bunch of buy to let deserve to win a gamble on rates with a bank. We are moving ever more to an extreme supply side economy where large corporations are being given all the cards. If contracts are written with a term that allows the corporation to change the terms if they are put at risk and this is allowed as a fair contract then expect all contracts from big business to contain such contracts.

You will then get situations where all the risk is carried by the consumer rather than the corporation. This is dangerous in a free market society because, well it's not very free market any more and demand isn't able to drive efficiencies because Supply has been made the all important factor in the market when they are actually two sides of the same coin.

It's the same scenario we have with the banks that are too big to fail, Companies that are borrowing to stay alive rather than invest and of course consumers in the same situation. Arguably these entities being propped up but should be going bust for making poor judgements (or bad timings or whatever) and releasing their capital assets to be bought up and used at a new lower and more efficient market price. Thus allowing growth (and no doubt bust ten years down the line because our politicians are short termist idiots).

ILW

Nobody was forced to sign one of these agreements with the "get out" clause. If you cannot be bothered to read a contract (or pay someone to to it for you) then don't complain when it is enacted upon.

Graham_Devon

Soubrette wrote: »

The issue is wider than just if a bunch of buy to let deserve to win a gamble on rates with a bank. We are moving ever more to an extreme supply side economy where large corporations are being given all the cards. If contracts are written with a term that allows the corporation to change the terms if they are put at risk and this is allowed as a fair contract then expect all contracts from big business to contain such contracts.

You will then get situations where all the risk is carried by the consumer rather than the corporation. This is dangerous in a free market society because, well it's not very free market any more and demand isn't able to drive efficiencies because Supply has been made the all important factor in the market when they are actually two sides of the same coin.

It's the same scenario we have with the banks that are too big to fail, Companies that are borrowing to stay alive rather than invest and of course consumers in the same situation. Arguably these entities being propped up but should be going bust for making poor judgements (or bad timings or whatever) and releasing their capital assets to be bought up and used at a new lower and more efficient market price. Thus allowing growth (and no doubt bust ten years down the line because our politicians are short termist idiots).

But what's the other option?

The bank goes down and those people with mortgages are bought out, under new terms anyway.

This isn't about the bank just enacting clauses. It's to stop them going (even more) bust.

dryhat

All most of these BTL clowns with IO mortgages are effectively doing is renting and then sub-letting a property.

Say you rented a house for £500 pm and sub-let it for £600 and the landlord said the rent was going up to £550. If you couldn't afford that you would have to "move out".
Meanwhile the sub-tennant who has been paying £600 all along could afford it - so gets to stay on at a reduced rate.

Ideally, this is the way it should happen in free market economy.

Unfortunately, that's just what we haven't got. All we have instead is speculation in housing using cheap money that nobody has any intention of repaying and the resultant misery that inevitably follows.

Harry_Boyle

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Think the problem with that thread at the moment is everyone is looking for someone else to blame.

It's even been said some have e-mailed crime watch for pities sake!

Doesn't help their cause when they are looking for sympathy. Quite surprised the "please be nice or say nothing at all" hasn't happened yet. The "your nasty" has however. Suppose it was only a matter of time.

Interesting how Devon sang to a different tune when his mortgage provider (Halifax) changed the rules:

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It seems they are changing rules ad hoc. Halifax already did this, but the powers that be were going to investigate them. Halifax jumped in beforehand and gave out goodwill payments to the customers this had effected. In essence, customers such as myself were not told of a cap, it's not in the agreement.

A cap was then placed on all of these mortgages, ad hoc.

The goodwill payment for adding the cap meant that Halifax could then re-write the terms and keep that cap from that point on.

So I am (and 100's of thouands of others) paying more than I should be (technically according to the terms i signed), which, as stated on my agreement, is 2% above base. I'm actually paying 3% above base. Soon to be 3.75% above base by the looks of things.

We had him bleating for weeks about it then "Oh, woah is me". What a hypocrite.

Graham_Devon

Harry_Boyle wrote: »

Interesting how Devon sang to a different tune when his mortgage provider (Halifax) changed the rules:



We had him bleating for weeks about it then "Oh, woah is me". What a hypocrite.

Apart from theres no woe is me in that which you quoted. Just literally facts.

Please Harry, give it a rest. You are on the mortgages forum calling me scum for revelling in peoples misery (which I'm not doing). here you are trying anything to gain something (not sure what) to make you feel like you have won something. I don't get it, but please calm it down a bit.

Harry_Boyle

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Apart from theres no woe is me in that which you quoted. Just literally facts.

Please Harry, give it a rest. You are on the mortgages forum calling me scum for revelling in peoples misery (which I'm not doing). here you are trying anything to gain something (not sure what) to make you feel like you have won something. I don't get it, but please calm it down a bit.

You're the one who gets emotional, not me (with your teary PMs to Gen). You're clearly angry now because I have outted you as a hypocrite. I remember you going on and on about the Halifax thing and in that post I linked you were moaning how unfair it is. Fast forward and you're revelling in other people's misery and telling them they should have read the contract.

"So I am (and 100's of thouands of others) paying more than I should be" - weep, weep.

You're such a hypocrite Devon. :rotfl: