Santander Mortgage Stuck on Standard Rate

amnblog

mrginge wrote: »

Ah the debate moves on....
Now we want to force a lender to offer deals to customers who are outside their lending criteria.

The end result of course being that everyone, regardless of circumstances ends up on the same deal.

We are pointing out that the lender has the opportunity within the regulations to treat the client, who has paid them in full and on time every month, fairly.

amnblog

Key paragraph from the blog referred to by KS.


'If affordability criteria are blocking people from doing that [remortgaging] this is a serious problem. After all, it means you are on an expensive mortgage deal and are being told you can’t afford to move to a cheap mortgage deal – nonsense, you can certainly afford to pay less, more than you can afford to pay more.'

Brock_and_Roll

Struggling to understand those that think Santander is acting unreasonably here....

The OP has defaulted on his/her non-mortgage debts by entering a DMP. Statistically this makes the OP a much higher risk to the bank. It would appear bizarre that such a customer, everything else being equal, be offered "special deals" that are offered to better risk customers. All banks measure themselves on return on capital at risk models these days that basically take the return on capital for a loan and adjust it to take account of the counterparty risk, how much they would lose in a default etc etc.

The standard rate is cheap by historical standards - indeed it could be argued that the OP should have a price increase - this is what would happen to a company's overdraft price in the corporate banking world if that company's credit deteriorated.

Obviously the fact that the bank appears to cut special deals to struggling customers in other areas other than mortgages perhaps has more to do with the unsecured nature of such products.

In conclusion, I fail to see how keeping customers to the terms they signed up to is treating anyone unfairly.

mrginge

amnblog wrote: »

We are pointing out that the lender has the opportunity within the regulations to treat the client, who has paid them in full and on time every month, fairly.

No, you are suggesting that a client who has at some point demonstrated an inability to manged their financial affairs according to the agreements that they made (and therefore represent a higher risk) should be given an unfair advantage over a similar placed client who has managed their financial affairs correctly.

Should we also be forcing car insurance companies to do away with no claims bonuses, because it's unfair to the guy who's premium is 2 grand just because he had the misfortune to have a few accidents, while the guy with no accidents gets the same cover for £500?

Leon_W

I'm not sure your analogy stacks up ginge.


Customer A and Customer B both make payments into their mortgage account on time.


Why should they be treated differently, surely it should be the exactly the same.

kingstreet

mrginge wrote: »

Should we also be forcing car insurance companies to do away with no claims bonuses, because it's unfair to the guy who's premium is 2 grand just because he had the misfortune to have a few accidents, while the guy with no accidents gets the same cover for £500?

If you don't mind me continuing/amending your analogy, the true comparison would be penalising someone's motor insurance discount/premiums for claims they made on their home insurance.

dunstonh

kingstreet wrote: »

If you don't mind me continuing/amending your analogy, the true comparison would be penalising someone's motor insurance discount/premiums for claims they made on their home insurance.

Or the real life situation where people pay more for car insurance or house insurance with some providers as they have bad debts. Even if they have always paid the insurance on time.

amnblog

anyone who believe lenders are doing anything based on anything other than profit needs a rethink

mrginge

Leon_W wrote: »

I'm not sure your analogy stacks up ginge.


Customer A and Customer B both make payments into their mortgage account on time.


Why should they be treated differently, surely it should be the exactly the same.

So you do believe the only criteria that should be assessed when a customer asks for a new mortgage deal is their previous payment history on their existing deal?

anyway, the two customers are not being treated differently, they both get assessed in the same way, based on the same tests. What you want to happen is that the outcome of that assessment is disregarded for one customer. How is that in any way 'fair'?

mrginge

kingstreet wrote: »

If you don't mind me continuing/amending your analogy, the true comparison would be penalising someone's motor insurance discount/premiums for claims they made on their home insurance.

When youapply for insurance you are generally asked - have you ever been refused any insurance in the past?

So that assessment does happen.