NRAM's Consent to Let Fee increase

mrginge

drussmonkey wrote: »

I am a dream customer who represents very, very little risk.

So yes, I am objectionable to the fee increasing more than tenfold when it's not reflection of the indivudual risk, and certainly not mine. As Laura says, everyone is being very unfairly lumped in together in this change.

A dream customer?
Very, very little risk?

The two things you have - negative equity and a rented property make you a significantly larger risk. Just because you pay on time makes sod all difference to those two factors.

And as for assessing everyone on a case by case basis, how are you expecting that this would make things cheaper?

lauraeast23

shortchanged wrote: »

lauraeast23 wrote: »

I tried to sell it and no takers, in fact hardly any viewers and no I didn't price it to try to cover the shortfall it was market value priced.
QUOTE]

It isn't market value if it hasn't sold.

If it hasn't sold it is overpriced in the current climate. Why do people find that a difficult concept to grasp.

Who told you it was market value? Estate agents?

Yes - the estate agent valued it I put it on for 5k less than they valued it at, then after a few motnhs dropped it by another 10k.

But with mortgages that are difficult to get now without substantial deposits, the new places round the corner even though smaller, and more expensive were more attractive to buyers as they had deposit paid schemes and FTB buyer advantages which I cannot offer.

In the end keeping it and renting out was the only option other than selling it for a price that would have left me with a huge shortfall to owe back to NRAM with nothing to show for it. However at this time their letting fees were not so high.

lauraeast23

mrginge wrote: »

The two things you have - negative equity and a rented property make you a significantly larger risk. Just because you pay on time makes sod all difference to those two factors.

Make your mind up- in an earlier post you stated that the increased charge was because of expected defaults.

With a squeaky clean account, guaranteed rent scheme from my letting agent and the offer of a guarantor from my Parents (which NRAM declined to need)

Seems like I have covered all my risk when it comes to the potential of defaulting, oh and the fact that I have no missed payments on my credit report ever and am in less debt than last year.

All I am saying is that when I apply this year there will be nothing additional than they had to do last year for my application, nothing has changed so why should I not feel angry that it could potentially cost over a thousand pounds more.

shortchanged_2

lauraeast23 wrote: »

shortchanged wrote: »

Yes - the estate agent valued it I put it on for 5k less than they valued it at, then after a few motnhs dropped it by another 10k.

But with mortgages that are difficult to get now without substantial deposits, the new places round the corner even though smaller, and more expensive were more attractive to buyers as they had deposit paid schemes and FTB buyer advantages which I cannot offer.

But unfortunately that is how the market is now. Banks have restricted lending compared to the previous decade and this now means houses are often overpriced because people cannot now afford them at the current levels.

For someone to say that is it's market value is all estate agent talk. A house value is only worth what someone is willing and able to pay for a property at the present time. That may well be substantially less than you paid for it.

Don't be fooled by all this average house price rising smokescreen. The housing market is very regional, with some areas doing OK and others tanking.

mrginge

lauraeast23 wrote: »

Make your mind up- in an earlier post you stated that the increased charge was because of expected defaults.

/QUOTE]

Did I?
Where exactly?

lauraeast23

shortchanged wrote: »

lauraeast23 wrote: »

But unfortunately that is how the market is now. Banks have restricted lending compared to the previous decade and this now means houses are often overpriced because people cannot now afford them at the current levels.

For someone to say that is it's market value is all estate agent talk. A house value is only worth what someone is willing and able to pay for a property at the present time. That may well be substantially less than you paid for it.

Don't be fooled by all this average house price rising smokescreen. The housing market is very regional, with some areas doing OK and others tanking.

I totally agree, and I priced my property at less than those that were for sale around me, and then dropped it again, and had very little interest.

Its a great flat very highly maintained, but with the lending the way it is and there are literally around 50 to 100 new places being built right next door with buyer incentives that I just cannot compete with I had no chance.

Yes I could have dropped the price through the floor to get rid of it but after paying into it for 6.5 years already, and I would have been looking at around a 50k shortfall, I would have had to continue to pay that back for years and then not even end up with anything.

So I made the only choice that I felt that I had at the time, but now that choice means a potential charge of over a thousands more than it was when I made that decision.

mrginge

lauraeast23 wrote: »

shortchanged wrote: »

So I made the only choice that I felt that I had at the time, but now that choice means a potential charge of over a thousands more than it was when I made that decision.

Surely you weren't expecting costs to stay the same indefinitely?
How will you cope if interest rates went up by 2%?

lauraeast23

mrginge wrote: »

lauraeast23 wrote: »

Surely you weren't expecting costs to stay the same indefinitely?
How will you cope if interest rates went up by 2%?

Of course I do not expect costs to stay the same, but I do expect any admin charge increases to be a reasonable increase based on what they were before.

It's not the fact that they have raised it but the percentage by which it has been increased.

drussmonkey

mrginge wrote: »

A dream customer?
Very, very little risk?

The two things you have - negative equity and a rented property make you a significantly larger risk. Just because you pay on time makes sod all difference to those two factors.

And as for assessing everyone on a case by case basis, how are you expecting that this would make things cheaper?

Another post with assertions that are completely wrong. Allow me to correct you in two regards.

1) I am not in negative equity.
2) I could afford to make the mortgage payments without the rental income.

Significantly larger risk? Your snide comments throughout this thread do you little credit.

mrginge

drussmonkey wrote: »

Another post with assertions that are completely wrong. Allow me to correct you in two regards.

1) I am not in negative equity.
2) I could afford to make the mortgage payments without the rental income.

Significantly larger risk? Your snide comments throughout this thread do you little credit.

Have you put your official complaint in yet?