MSE News: Chancellor writes to lenders after 'mortgage prisoner' meeting with Martin

MSE_LukeMSE_Luke MSE Staff
295 Posts
Fourth Anniversary
MSE Staff
George Osborne has written to lenders following a meeting with Martin Lewis about the plight of 'mortgage prisoners'...
Read the full story:
'Chancellor writes to lenders after 'mortgage prisoner' meeting with Martin Lewis – but more must be done'
OfficialStamp.gif
Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.
«1

Replies

  • MacMicksterMacMickster Forumite
    3.6K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    Martin Lewis is wrong on this one and the chancellor is right.

    The lender who is already bearing the risk re a current borrower who wouldn't meet current affordability guidelines should be able (not forced) to offer other mortgage products on their books without revisiting affordability.

    It would be foolish in the extreme to force other lenders to take on the risk of these "sub-prime" borrowers.
    "When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
  • One-EyeOne-Eye Forumite
    59.5K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    Borrowers who don't satisfy the affordability checks and are paying 5% should be accepted onto a 3% deal provided their monthly payments are not reduced and the "extra" they pay is used for capital repayment. They would soon be in a much healthier financial position due to a lower outstanding debt and a lower loan-to-value percentage.
  • ThrugelmirThrugelmir Forumite
    89.5K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    One-Eye wrote: »
    Borrowers who don't satisfy the affordability checks and are paying 5% should be accepted onto a 3% deal provided their monthly payments are not reduced and the "extra" they pay is used for capital repayment. They would soon be in a much healthier financial position due to a lower outstanding debt and a lower loan-to-value percentage.

    Then lenders would fall foul of a duty of care to borrowers if such terms were imposed, and the borrower subsequently defaulted.
    Real insurance claim quote : -

    "Going to work at 7am this morning I drove out of my drive straight into a bus. The bus was 5 minutes early.".
  • One-Eye wrote: »
    Borrowers who don't satisfy the affordability checks and are paying 5% should be accepted onto a 3% deal provided their monthly payments are not reduced and the "extra" they pay is used for capital repayment. They would soon be in a much healthier financial position due to a lower outstanding debt and a lower loan-to-value percentage.

    Agree. I think you'll find that many trapped prisoners will jump at the chance to get back on track. I just wish it had gone further though and stipulated a date for compliance.
  • brit1234brit1234 Forumite
    5.4K Posts
    We should stop bailing out reckless borrowers, it just encouraging more people to lie or take stupid risks.

    :mad:
    :exclamatiScams - Shared Equity, Shared Ownership, Newbuy, Firstbuy and Help to Buy.

    Save our Savers
  • Glover1862Glover1862 Forumite
    396 Posts
    Seventh Anniversary 100 Posts
    ✭✭
    If you stay with the same lender and go for a 'execution only' transfer then no credit checks are done, ok, it means no advice can be given and you get no fsa protection but the option is there, what's the problem?

    I've done this a few times with coop, simple phone call, pick your new product and that's it. Surly, someone on a higher variable rate can work out that a fix maybe cheaper.
  • edited 19 May 2016 at 7:34AM
    AnotherJoeAnotherJoe Forumite
    19.6K Posts
    10,000 Posts Fifth Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 19 May 2016 at 7:34AM
    Glover1862 wrote: »
    If you stay with the same lender and go for a 'execution only' transfer then no credit checks are done, ok, it means no advice can be given and you get no fsa protection but the option is there, what's the problem?

    The problem is, not all lenders do this
    Glover1862 wrote: »
    I've done this a few times with coop, simple phone call, pick your new product and that's it. Surly, someone on a higher variable rate can work out that a fix maybe cheaper.

    Yes, they know that, thats why they are switching, doh ! But they arent allowed to switch !
    brit1234 wrote: »
    We should stop bailing out reckless borrowers, it just encouraging more people to lie or take stupid risks.

    :mad:
    Talk about missing the point. There's no bailing out going on, and its got nothing to do with being reckless, and everything to do with illogical bureaucracy.
  • Glover1862Glover1862 Forumite
    396 Posts
    Seventh Anniversary 100 Posts
    ✭✭
    Are there many lenders out there now that don't allow a execution only switch on a residential mortgage? All the ones I came across certainly did, different case for BTL.
  • brit1234 wrote: »
    We should stop bailing out reckless borrowers, it just encouraging more people to lie or take stupid risks.

    :mad:

    Are you suggesting people who have IO mortgages lie, are reckless and stupid borrowers? And those who do not have an IO mortgage don't lie, aren't reckless or stupid borrowers? IO mortgage lenders have done a good PR job in shifting the responsibility for their lending to the customers they lent to.

    You may want to consider the reason many of us have IO mortgages instead of repayment mortgages is because they were the only ones we could get because we were self employed.

    We aren't asking for more money - we're asking to be put on a cheaper deal like non IO mortgage customers are being offered so we can pay the mortgage off.
  • VT82VT82 Forumite
    1.1K Posts
    Tenth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭
    It would be foolish in the extreme to force other lenders to take on the risk of these "sub-prime" borrowers.
    This was my first thought, but I don't actually think it's the issue. I think the new lenders actually want the borrowers referred to in the article to be able to remortgage to them, but they're not able to because 'computer says no'. The suggestion is that these lenders should be told they can over-rule the 'computer says no' verdict if they wish to lend to the borrowers, and the borrowers can prove the new payment would be no greater than their old one that they've been easily managing. Not a case of 'forcing' new lenders to lend.
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides

NS&I to change Premium Bond prize rate

It will rise to 1.40% from June

MSE News

Compers of the MSE Forum:

Show us the prizes you've won recently

Join the MSE Forum discussion