Interest only mortgage rate ending.

chris2304_2

Thanks

"They can't insist you change to repayment, but they can refuse to allow a product transfer if you don't."

Seems like complaints waiting to happen ! I certainly would. How can it be justified to keep you on a higher rate if your mortgage is deemed "unaffordable" while lower rates and payments are available.

It's strange. I've always loved my interest only mortgage as it serves me way better than a repayment (although I realise i'm lucky in that I could sell up tomorrow and repay the loan AND downsize) But Halifax see me as some sort of pariah with a toxic product who needs lecturing every two years it seems now.

Thrugelmir

chris2304 wrote: »

FCA Transitional arrangements say they don't have to make any affordability checks on an existing mortgage if you're not borrowing more or changing the term so Halifax are out of order in my view insisting on the TWO HOUR torture !

While they don't have. Lenders can. Quoting the FCA at them is therefore pointless.

Thrugelmir

moffat2000 wrote: »

Here's the question. Do we think Halifax is likely to try and get me onto a full repayment mortgage, or do we think they'll still offer part of all of the mortgage at interest only? If I could get a 50/50 split capital and interest it would take less of the sting out of my monthly budget. Do we think Halifax would offer such a thing?

Would extending the term make it easier. Only if it's an option of course.

glosoli

If they make their recommendation for you to switch onto Capital and Interest, wouldn't you just be able to reject their advice and self select your own interest only product and lose the protection of an advised mortgage?

chris2304_2

I think that was the question I was asking glosoli which you managed to put much more succinctly !

Anyone know ?

Yes, I read that part of the handbook thrugelmir . It seems a bit silly as I've been asked to send in proof of income for a product transfer which (according to Halifax "policy" (not regulation) I can't afford but they are more than willing to leave me on the SVR at nearly double the monthly payment !

Anyway. I think I'm sorted out on a like for like basis at a better rate so we'll see but I can easily see someone without thier wits about them being talked into something they regret.

My advice would be not to change anything, loan amount or term and make your disposable income look as SMALL as possible. That way they're less likely to mess you around.

kingstreet

Yes. If it APPEARS you can't afford any part of an interest-only mortgage on repayment, they will permit the PT on interest-only.

Seems like complaints waiting to happen ! I certainly would. How can it be justified to keep you on a higher rate if your mortgage is deemed "unaffordable" while lower rates and payments are available.

That's exactly what I'm saying. They appear to want to deal with each case ad-hoc, one by one, rather than having a credible policy to deal with all such cases.

moffat2000

Good evening all. I thought I should finish the thread with how I got on.
I phoned Halifax and spent a slightly torturous 90 minutes with a mortgage advisor. Really nice guy to be fair but I had to got through everything. My income, my wife's income, expenditure, loans, credit card debt, retirement plans (I'm 37!!!), repayment vehicles etc etc.
In conclusion, my repayment vehicle is no longer acceptable (cash ISA) but they were willing to let that slide as long as I confirmed it was my responsibility to pay of the capital on my property in 23 years time.
They then offered me a full interest only deal fixed for 2 years. This was because they claim, having done an affordability check, that I can't afford to come off a full interest only deal. I disagree but I am more than willing to take the deal and make overpayments for the next two years, chipping away at the capital.
I imagine the fact I am at the early stages of my mortgage and only fixing for 2 years has worked in my advantage. Meaning in 2 years I can begin the whole darn process all over again. It does sound like they treat every case individually, as was suggesting in a previous comment, rather than having a blanket rule for IO deals.
Thanks to everyone who passed on opinion and advice. Much appreciated.

Thrugelmir

moffat2000 wrote: »

It does sound like they treat every case individually, as was suggesting in a previous comment, rather than having a blanket rule for IO deals.

Stating the obvious. Everyone's circumstances differ.