Santander Mortgage Stuck on Standard Rate

Kerryjp

Can anyone help us please ? We have had a Santander (formerly Abbey National ) mortgage for over 12 years. We have NEVER missed a payment despite my husband being made redundant. For the last five years we have been on a debt management plan with Stepchange and have kept up with the agreed repayments to other creditors. About a few years ago the Santander told us that because we were on a debt management plan thy could only offer us the standard rate and would no longer give us any offers. We are completely trapped by them. Instead of helping us they are adding to our stress and debts.
We would welcome any suggestions.

Thrugelmir

In the politest way possible. Santander haven't trapped you. As they didn't put you into the DMP. Seek advice and support if you are struggling while interest rates are so low.

Try the Debt Free Wannabe board as a starting point.

dunstonh

We are completely trapped by them.

No. You are trapped because you went into a DMP. There are consequences to not paying your debts. This is one of them. It is wrong to focus on Santander.

Instead of helping us they are adding to our stress and debts.

They are not adding to your debts. The debt was already there. You agreed the terms with them and they are honouring those terms. No more. No less.

Have you recently asked Santander again about a new deal as they may take a different stance now? Maybe its the fact they wont let you increase your borrowing that is the issue (i.e. you cant add fees to the mortgage but would have to pay them directly if you cant pay them directly, they wont offer the deal)

steeeb

How much is their standard rate?

Shouldn't be too different to there fixed rates should it? It's likely less in a lot of cases due to the expectation that interest rates will rise built into any fixed deals.

In which case see it as a short term bonus. Continue getting out of debt and either remortgage or get a new fixed rate once your circumstances have changed.

If you can't afford the payments as they are then you could perhaps ask for a 'payment holiday' or whether they can do anything else. Don't forget - they aren't obliged to at all. Failing that, you should look at downsizing or selling up until you get back on your feet in the future.

boredoftherings

The elephant in the room on moneysavingexpert is the fundamental point shown above - the person is not able to renegotiate their mortgage with santander, just as I wasnt - I wasn't in a permanent job paying £26K pa or more. THEREFORE all of Martin's advice on mortgages to me was redundant BECAUSE I - and kerryjp - WERE NOT IN A POSITION TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF such deals... SOBs at santander wouldn't give in - so I sold my flat, and now rent thru some sharks (ie a letting agency) instead. I shall never ever buy again. Ditto with the fantastic credit card deals, or accounts with First direct - I don't have a takehome pay of £1500pcm, so its deals are IRRELEVANT - many people are shunned by big business, and even Mr Lewis can't change that state of affairs.

dunstonh

many people are shunned by big business, and even Mr Lewis can't change that state of affairs.

There is no right to own a home or have credit. It is something you earn through hard work and responsibility and it is an option that comes with some risk.

kingstreet

Two borrowers have a mortgage with the same lender.

Both have paid their mortgage payments on time for a number of years.

One is struggling financially and has responsibly prioritised the roof over their heads and defaulted on unsecured credit through external issues.

The other has no problems and has managed to pay all their credit on time.

The lender already holds both mortgages. It prevents borrower one from having anything other than SVR charging 4.74%. It penalises borrower one.

Borrower two can have another special offer paying 2%. It rewards borrower two.

I'm sorry to come over all socialist, but how is the lender meeting its obligations to treat each borrower fairly and on what planet does taking more money from those in a worse position to pay it do anything other than increase the sense of injustice felt by many a taxpayer, towards institutions who owe their survival to the taxpayer?

Why doesn't a lender reward those who pay it the right amount, on time each month equally?

kingstreet

First one to say "well they have got the follow-on rate they agreed to on the KFI/offer etc" follows the way of Benito, come the revolution!

Can we discuss this without toeing any particular lines, or mindsets?

TrickyDicky101

It's also about statistical risk - if borrower one has less money and thus a greater risk of defaulting on the mortgage, then the lender needs to be compensated for running with the risk (ie the higher interest rate). It may suck, but life ain't fair.

Ronaldo_Mconaldo

kingstreet wrote: »

Two borrowers have a mortgage with the same lender.

Both have paid their mortgage payments on time for a number of years.

One is struggling financially and has responsibly prioritised the roof over their heads and defaulted on unsecured credit through external issues.

The other has no problems and has managed to pay all their credit on time.

The lender already holds both mortgages. It prevents borrower one from having anything other than SVR charging 4.74%. It penalises borrower one.

Borrower two can have another special offer paying 2%. It rewards borrower two.

I'm sorry to come over all socialist, but how is the lender meeting its obligations to treat each borrower fairly and on what planet does taking more money from those in a worse position to pay it do anything other than increase the sense of injustice felt by many a taxpayer, towards institutions who owe their survival to the taxpayer?

Why doesn't a lender reward those who pay it the right amount, on time each month equally?

It's quite simple: they don't want you! It's their way of telling you to get lost. And why shouldn't they? The alternative is for the good borrower to help bail out the bad one by paying higher interest. Why should they? Neither a borrower nor a lender be.

Dave_Ham

Kingstreet has the moral high ground here people, I am staying on the fence