Landmark sold my mortgage on!

minkydot

I have just received a letter from my mortgage company Landmark Mortgages. I am one of the Mortgage Prisoners who had their mortgage sold on by the government when Northern Rock went bump. From NR I was moved to NRAM then LANDMARK MORTGAGES and today I've just found out my mortgage has been transferred to BLOOM LOANS trading name of TOPAZ FINANCIAL LTD. Who the heck are they?  Never heard of them and when I've checked the reviews and they're are as bad if not as worse than LANDMARK!  

How can this happen, it's appalling. As an original NR customer how can my mortgage be passed on and on,  paying extortionate interest rates? When it's nigh on impossible for me to enter into another mortgage independently and get a lower rate! Thank goodness I've got less than 4 years less!

I have joined the thousands of mortgage prisoners in a legal battle over the extortionate rates we are stuck paying.

Hoenir

The sale of a mortgage loan on to another party is perfectly legal. All in the contract you signed and agreed to at the outset. As an original NR mortgage holder why haven't you remortgaged after all these years? 

silvercar

Lenders are allowed to sell on their mortgage portfolio. Your terms and conditions don't change.

born_again

Hoenir said:

The sale of a mortgage loan on to another party is perfectly legal. All in the contract you signed and agreed to at the outset. As an original NR mortgage holder why haven't you remortgaged after all these years? 

Many could not as FCA changed the affordability rules on mortgages. Which meant many could not get a new mortgage, despite already paying far more than they would if they had re-mortgaged 🤷‍♀️

MWT

born_again said:

Hoenir said:

The sale of a mortgage loan on to another party is perfectly legal. All in the contract you signed and agreed to at the outset. As an original NR mortgage holder why haven't you remortgaged after all these years? 

Many could not as FCA changed the affordability rules on mortgages. Which meant many could not get a new mortgage, despite already paying far more than they would if they had re-mortgaged 🤷‍♀️

There were some changes in recent years to allow lenders to be more flexible when considering applications from mortgage prisoners as long as the existing mortgage was current, but even then it has not always been possible for those trapped to escape.

saajan_12

What difference does it make to the borrower who receives the monthly payments ?
- The rate could change in the same way it could with the original lender;
- Whether you're tied (prisoner) to this contract wihtout being able to remortgage is the same position as it would have been with the original lender

The actual issues here have nothing to do with the mortgage being sold on. 

Hoenir

born_again said:

Hoenir said:

The sale of a mortgage loan on to another party is perfectly legal. All in the contract you signed and agreed to at the outset. As an original NR mortgage holder why haven't you remortgaged after all these years? 

Many could not as FCA changed the affordability rules on mortgages. Which meant many could not get a new mortgage, despite already paying far more than they would if they had re-mortgaged 🤷‍♀️

Given that the mortgages were on interest only basis. There's been nearly 17 years now to address the issue in some way. NR wrote a lot of mortgage business well outside the risk profile of other lenders. Had 20% of the market at the peak. 

MWT

saajan_12 said:

What difference does it make to the borrower who receives the monthly payments ?
- The rate could change in the same way it could with the original lender;
- Whether you're tied (prisoner) to this contract wihtout being able to remortgage is the same position as it would have been with the original lender

To be fair, it is not that simple, if the mortgages were with a lender with an active retail book then there would be alternatives to the SVR which they could take, but these mortgages are with closed book lenders and there is only the SVR, which leads to the problems reported.

Yes there are also other issues relating to the nature of the original loans and the risk profile (some being self-certified for example) but combined with little to no equity growth in a lot of these properties it has left people trapped on both sides, being unable to sell and being unable to move to better rates.

silvercar

MWT said:

saajan_12 said:

What difference does it make to the borrower who receives the monthly payments ?
- The rate could change in the same way it could with the original lender;
- Whether you're tied (prisoner) to this contract wihtout being able to remortgage is the same position as it would have been with the original lender

To be fair, it is not that simple, if the mortgages were with a lender with an active retail book then there would be alternatives to the SVR which they could take, but these mortgages are with closed book lenders and there is only the SVR, which leads to the problems reported.

Yes there are also other issues relating to the nature of the original loans and the risk profile (some being self-certified for example) but combined with little to no equity growth in a lot of these properties it has left people trapped on both sides, being unable to sell and being unable to move to better rates.

I suspect most of the issues now are customers not having the income to move their mortgage. House price rises over the last 17 years, should mean that there is equity in the properties.

Hoenir

silvercar said:

MWT said:

saajan_12 said:

What difference does it make to the borrower who receives the monthly payments ?
- The rate could change in the same way it could with the original lender;
- Whether you're tied (prisoner) to this contract wihtout being able to remortgage is the same position as it would have been with the original lender

To be fair, it is not that simple, if the mortgages were with a lender with an active retail book then there would be alternatives to the SVR which they could take, but these mortgages are with closed book lenders and there is only the SVR, which leads to the problems reported.

Yes there are also other issues relating to the nature of the original loans and the risk profile (some being self-certified for example) but combined with little to no equity growth in a lot of these properties it has left people trapped on both sides, being unable to sell and being unable to move to better rates.

I suspect most of the issues now are customers not having the income to move their mortgage. House price rises over the last 17 years, should mean that there is equity in the properties.

Borrowers will increasingly being heading towards the end of their mortage terms. Insufficient years lying ahead to repay the debt out of earned income. 

MWT

silvercar said:

MWT said:

saajan_12 said:

What difference does it make to the borrower who receives the monthly payments ?
- The rate could change in the same way it could with the original lender;
- Whether you're tied (prisoner) to this contract wihtout being able to remortgage is the same position as it would have been with the original lender

To be fair, it is not that simple, if the mortgages were with a lender with an active retail book then there would be alternatives to the SVR which they could take, but these mortgages are with closed book lenders and there is only the SVR, which leads to the problems reported.

Yes there are also other issues relating to the nature of the original loans and the risk profile (some being self-certified for example) but combined with little to no equity growth in a lot of these properties it has left people trapped on both sides, being unable to sell and being unable to move to better rates.

I suspect most of the issues now are customers not having the income to move their mortgage. House price rises over the last 17 years, should mean that there is equity in the properties.

I'd have hoped so too, but I've been surprised on that point by more than one of the prisoners who have previously posted on here... even when there has been some growth in the value, it has been eaten up with increases in the outstanding mortgage due to late fees and arrears etc.