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

brit1234

Leafeysurrey wrote: »

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.

I haven't got an issue with the idea of interest only, where people don't want to have a repayment mortgage as they can reinvest that extra money else where in shares or other investments to pay down the mortgage once due.

However it has been turned into a mass dog pooh of fraud with corrupt mortgage advisors getting people to use them to borrow more and less cost and not have a viable repayment vehicle or no repayment vehicle at all. Why do you think the mortgage review banned them for residential properties? Yes because it turned into mass fraud.

Why do you think that the European Union is campaigning for their ban with buy to let and the Band of England is doing a study to be revealed this Autumn? Because many landlords lie and don't have repayment vehicles committing mass fraud.

Leafeysurrey have you got a repayment vehicle to pay down the mortgage?

I have no sympathy for those who take out reckless loans for property, they shouldn't be constantly bailed out for their stupidity. It just encourages more people to be reckless and promotes bad practice as well as asset bubbles which damage the economy.

vase

brit1234 wrote: »

We should stop bailing out reckless borrowers, it just encouraging more people to lie or take stupid risks.

:mad:

How is this reckless? Someone takes out a mortgage that they can afford, but a while later, they'd like to move to get a better deal that will allow them more disposable income. I fail to understand how that is wrong?

If someone pays £1000 per month and has done for a while, their LTV falls so they can get a cheaper payment at £700 for example, would it not be reckless not to move?

JimmyTheWig

MacMickster wrote: »

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.

No-one is talking about forcing them to accept the new customer. They're talking about changing the rules so they can be allowed to accept the new customer.

Leafeysurrey

Leafeysurrey have you got a repayment vehicle to pay down the mortgage?

Yes - two - but it's going to be really hard if at all possible now to pay off the mortgage because the money we'd allocated to go towards one of the payment vehicles has been swallowed up by us paying around £500 a month extra since the BOE started dropping the interest rate.

We took the mortgage because we had a written guarantee in the contract that the SVR was capped at a certain rate above the BOE rate which it wouldn't go over. But when the BOE dropped the interest rate our bank raised the cap 'guarantee' and put up the the interest rate. Shortly after that they raised the cap 'guarantee' again.

We didn't get any warning, just a letter saying they were doing it. It was too little notice to make other changes - we were trapped.

A lot of people are in the same position as us.

Thrugelmir

Leafeysurrey wrote: »

Leafeysurrey have you got a repayment vehicle to pay down the mortgage?

Yes - two - but it's going to be really hard if at all possible now to pay off the mortgage because the money we'd allocated to go towards one of the payment vehicles has been swallowed up by us paying around £500 a month extra since the BOE started dropping the interest rate.

We took the mortgage because we had a written guarantee in the contract that the SVR was capped at a certain rate above the BOE rate which it wouldn't go over. But when the BOE dropped the interest rate our bank raised the cap 'guarantee' and put up the the interest rate. Shortly after that they raised the cap 'guarantee' again.

We didn't get any warning, just a letter saying they were doing it. It was too little notice to make other changes - we were trapped.

A lot of people are in the same position as us.

Who is your lender?

michaels

brit1234 wrote: »

I haven't got an issue with the idea of interest only, where people don't want to have a repayment mortgage as they can reinvest that extra money else where in shares or other investments to pay down the mortgage once due.

However it has been turned into a mass dog pooh of fraud with corrupt mortgage advisors getting people to use them to borrow more and less cost and not have a viable repayment vehicle or no repayment vehicle at all. Why do you think the mortgage review banned them for residential properties? Yes because it turned into mass fraud.

Why do you think that the European Union is campaigning for their ban with buy to let and the Band of England is doing a study to be revealed this Autumn? Because many landlords lie and don't have repayment vehicles committing mass fraud.

Leafeysurrey have you got a repayment vehicle to pay down the mortgage?

I have no sympathy for those who take out reckless loans for property, they shouldn't be constantly bailed out for their stupidity. It just encourages more people to be reckless and promotes bad practice as well as asset bubbles which damage the economy.

A renter is allowed to save as little or as much as they choose. A homeowner 'must' save enough to pay for the capital value of the property they are living in at the end of their mortgage (is this a fixed date?).

I don't understand why some people see the world in this way - if owners are forced to save then surely we should bring in the same rules for renters?