Northern Rock End of Mortgaged Deal (Merged Threads)

Rhodrich

I just spoke to Northern Rock (Asset Management) regarding my mortgage portability, as I have 10 years left of a fixed rate, and am considering moving house. When I took out the mortgage, I was told by the salesperson in the branch that there would be no problem moving the mortgage when I moved house, and taking out more money (providing that my situation didn't change).

They have told me that if I move before 30th June, and take out a mortgage with another company for more than £3,000 more than my existing balance, they will refund my early repayment charge as a goodwill gesture. Beyond the 30th June deadline, they can't confirm anything however.

Clearly, they know they're on shakey ground, and don't want to face mis-selling allegations. I personally would never have locked in to a 15 year fix had I not been told that the mortgage was fully portable (which it clearly now isn't).

For me, this is good news. I'll ignore their self imposed goodwill gesture deadline. If they're prepared to offer this on the basis of a 5 minute phone call, it would suggest to me that they would still be able to offer it after the deadline, given a more strongly worded solicitor's letter....

R

dasilva_2

To all these clever dicks on here saying that it was obvious NR was being risky and that on taking a mortgage with them we should not be suprised if we end up paying sub prime rates. RUBBISH.
I took out a mortgage in 2002 of £170000 on a property for which I paid £410000 for.
I had an annual income of £60k approx. completely credit clean. I took the NR offer because it was the best deal at the time. I have never missed a payment, but 18 months ago I became self employed. I currently pay my mortgage no problem (i ought to, it is nearly half what it was at one time) However my income level is not really sufficient on paper to justify £180K remortgage even though my property has recently been valued at £650k so LTV is no problem. I've been dumped to NRAM and can quite imagine that the SVR will get ramped up disproportionately to the BOE rate.
Why should I have to suffer disproportionately to similar people who took out a similar mortgage at the same time. No other mortgage company I am aware of, recheck their customers credit status/affordability status mid term and alter their rates accordingly.
I would appreciate it if I was constantly in arrears, but I'm not.

Mary_Hartnell

Another Mortgagor of uncertain age who has that ring of confidence:
Absolutely no chance of:
Unemployment,
Marital Breakdown,
Death in the family,
Pregnancy,
Illness,
Accident,
Death.
living in a house that has absolutely no risk of
Subsidence,
Compulsory purchase,
Flooding,
Storms,
Fire,
In a country where all the world is rushing to lend our government more money at pitifully low rates of interest to finance our 178,000,000,000 annual deficit.
(Divide that by the working population of the country and ask yourself if you can easily afford that too, before you pay your share of the repayments owing on previous government spending).

b0rker

Marty, having looked at your posting history I am not sure where your penchant for coming on this thread and spamming it with doom and gloom messages comes from. It is perplexing.

MarkyMarkD however seems to post obsessively about supporting the banks on every single move they make.

It's a shame that people with vested interests feel the need to come on this thread and cause people looking for advice to be more and more worried about the state of their futures by spitting out hyperbolism.

MarkyMarkD

I certainly don't obsessively post supporting the banks. If I have any purpose in posting here it's to bring a dose of reality. There's no point in 100 of you all posting "obviously, NR or NRAM cannot increase their SVR because we think we are good risks". NR or NRAM can do exactly whatever they like with their SVRs, and so should they do so, to reflect the ACTUAL risk level of their portfolio, not their customers' imagined view of it.

Arguing that a government-owned NRAM should treat borrowers extra leniently - i.e. charge less than the risk justifies - is ridiculous. Why should all other taxpayers subsidise NRAM's borrowers?

I don't defend banks on this thread in the slightest - NR did some awful quality lending. It is the others on the thread who reckon NR was quite right to lend them lots of money which other lenders would, in many cases, not.

Regarding dasilva's post, I have great sympathy for your situation. You borrowed a perfectly sensible amount, based on your income and LTV.

But, whether or not lenders have tended in the past to reunderwrite at the time of product switches - and they certainly haven't - I have posted previously and I will continue to suggest that they SHOULD do so now. It is bonkers to give cheaper deals to customers who are effectively unable to remortgage elsewhere because their perceived risk level has increased. Hopefully all lenders will start realising this and assessing risk properly.

dasilva_2

Mary Hartnell
I would like to answer some of your concerns.
Unemployment: I'm self employed
Marital Breakdown: I'm not married
Death in the family: If my parents die, I'll pay off the mortgage
Pregnancy: If I become pregnant, I'll sell my story via Max clifford and buy a larger house. I'm a bloke.
Illness: Point taken, but I have insurance
Accident. Ditto
Death. Why would I care?
living in a house that has absolutely no risk of
Subsidence: Insurance
Compulsory purchase: Unlikely, but the purchase part does point to the answer.
Flooding. Insurance, but I live at the top of a very steep hill, even by the worst climate research unit figures I'll be dead before the flood arrives.
Storms: Insurance
Fire: Insurance
As for the age, the relevance is what?
So, you see out of your doom and gloom world I have now retained the will to live.

Somerset

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

NR or NRAM can do exactly whatever they like with their SVRs, and so should they do so, to reflect the ACTUAL risk level of their portfolio, not their customers' imagined view of it.

Arguing that a government-owned NRAM should treat borrowers extra leniently - i.e. charge less than the risk justifies - is ridiculous. Why should all other taxpayers subsidise NRAM's borrowers?

NR did some awful quality lending. It is the others on the thread who reckon NR was quite right to lend them lots of money which other lenders would, in many cases, not.

You seem to be confirming that NRAM have a high risk portfolio and are sub prime. Is that correct ?

You ask why should taxpayers subsidise NRAM's borrowers - I don't think anyone is expecting that. We were expecting a level playing field, on a par with other mainstream lenders (SVR wise), not sub prime rates.

If NRAM hike their SVR'S up, that won't be about 'the taxpayer not subsidising us' - that will be us borrowers subsidising the taxpayer ie bleeding us dry as harshly as possible to maximise the cashflow back to the Treasury.

We are just the inconsequential cannon fodder that may potentially be screwed over as a result of the ex NR board of director's decisions, and the government's determination not to let a bank fail. I've already subsidised the government's decision once,as a taxpayer - I'm not going to do it again as a mortgage payer.

Mary_Hartnell

dasilva wrote: »

Mary Hartnell
I would like to answer some of your concerns.
Unemployment: I'm self employed
Marital Breakdown: I'm not married
Death in the family: If my parents die, I'll pay off the mortgage
Pregnancy: If I become pregnant, I'll sell my story via Max clifford and buy a larger house. I'm a bloke.
Illness: Point taken, but I have insurance
Accident. Ditto
Death. Why would I care?
living in a house that has absolutely no risk of
Subsidence: Insurance
Compulsory purchase: Unlikely, but the purchase part does point to the answer.
Flooding. Insurance, but I live at the top of a very steep hill, even by the worst climate research unit figures I'll be dead before the flood arrives.
Storms: Insurance
Fire: Insurance
As for the age, the relevance is what?
So, you see out of your doom and gloom world I have now retained the will to live.

You sound like a good bet - can I offer you a private mortgage;)

Those nice people at Barclays have just told me that my monthly cheque is going down from 500 GBP to 100 GBP now that the "bond" has matured.

Age is relevant, mortgagors are a bit like old cars, bits start falling off and passing the MOT gets more difficult.
Some know that old dogs have trouble with new tricks. The care home will want the house off you, not you still paying a mortgage on it.
Bit worried about this self employment stuff though - What do you do?

Any plans to go into the procreation phase?
(are we talking "pink pound"?).

I'm sort of joking BUT you might be an example of how the market is not working at the moment.

Mary_Hartnell

I've already subsidised the government's decision once,as a taxpayer - I'm not going to do it again as a mortgage payer.

But it is OK for me to do it as a pensioner?
Let me see - the GDP (especially for those producing real things) of the country has fallen, we cannot borrow from the future any more and the currency has slumped (as the oil runs out) but you don't expect to take your share of the pain ?.

I know I'll do your washing and you will do mine and we will both get rich on the proceeds.

Somerset

Mary_Hartnell wrote: »

but you don't expect to take your share of the pain ?.

I know I'll do your washing and you will do mine and we will both get rich on the proceeds.

I've already taken my share of the pain bailing out the banking system and will continue to do so through the tax my masters take. I simply don't expect to be double penalised for decisions I had no part in taking. Unfortunately I wasn't on the board of NR or HBOS or Lloyds - I'm not an MP or member of the Cabinet (if I was my mortgage would have been redeemed via 'benefits'). So maybe your ire should be reserved for those who caused the problem, those who badly dealt with the problem - not those caught up in the aftermath of the problem ?

Either NRAM is sub-prime or it isn't. If it isn't, charging borrower's sub prime SVR's is shylocking. Wrong. If it is sub prime, the Treasury's actions have locked mainstream borrower's to a sub prime lender.

P.S. How much will you pay for your washing? I might need the extra soon.