Northern Rock End of Mortgaged Deal (Merged Threads)

b0rker

VIGILANT22 wrote: »

Where is all this sub prime hysteria coming from....You say they may decide in the same token they may not decide....rolls eyes

From people like MarkyMarkD repeatedly stating on this forum that NRAM should put their SVR up to sub prime levels perhaps?

enay73

I do believe if NRAM will raise the SVR higher than other lenders, then people like me or others will be stuck there because they haven't got any chance to get any deal there or elsewhere, as we still in negative equity, due for too much mortgage on it or because the house property fall down. When NRAM was a sub prime lender decided to give us these kind of mortgages and I do firmly believe, it was not just NR do this kind of mortgages. Now NR collapsed and became 2 differents parts. Because we are there, we haven't got any chance and we cannot get a fix deal and try as much we can to put down our balance.
Also it would be too risky for them as they will start to repossess houses and maybe starting have losses. There is a limit who you can afford to pay, and if raises too much, it would be a very bad idea.
That's my point of view but I don't think it's fair on me or others.
Just unfair.
As I said on previous postes, it was my choice but never thought NR would collapse and thousands of customers took the fix deals, through the 2006 and 2007, so almost now they are running out the fix deal.
I will try my best as I am able to make overpayments but it's completely unfair for others who cannot do this.
Everyone has got different opinions and we should accept it. If somoene is into finances should be awere this situations.
Thats all
Have a nice day

semanticist

b0rker wrote: »

So you would prefer big business and the government to be allowed to operate in any way they wish without the people who are affected by these operations analysing it and coming to certain conclusions?

The points being made here are specifically due to the fact that NRAM may decide to start to treat it's customers as sub prime in relation to their SVR. Clearly not because they have already done so. Mostly due to the fact that so far they have not done so. Sorry I feel that I am explaining the obvious to you and that you have totally missed the point.

I will protect my rights with or without your blessing.

I'm not sure how you managed to go from 'You're no worse off' to 'Big business can do whatever it likes'. You're just looking to demonise someone who holds a different position than you do. Please don't do that - it helps no one.

I don't think most people in this thread understand the term 'sub-prime' - it's being used like it's something you heard on the news as a synonym for 'bad'. 'Sub-prime' specifically refers to mortgages which have a high risk of default. That includes people with high LTV ratios, people with high income multiples, or - in the US - people with half a dozen mortgages and no income.

If you're unable to change mortgage providers, I'd say that by definition your mortgage is 'sub-prime'. That's not the fault of Northern Rock - if you were with any other lender you'd be in the same position, unable to leave and subject to whims of their actuarial department. The only reason there's more people in this position with NR/NRAM is that their loan business was riskier - less 'prime', if you like. If they offered you the best deal when you took your mortgage out, it's likely because you were too far from the norm to get the best deals from a mainstream lender. What does that say about your situation?

Lots of lenders are raising their SVR (Chesham Building Society's is at 6.5%!) - Northern Rock would have had to do this regardless of if there had been a run on the bank in 2007. You're not any worse off. Really, you're not. Even if the rates increase, you're still not any worse off than you would have been if NRAM was still a trading bank.

And unless I've missed something somewhere, no one has a 'right' to a cheap mortgage. You can fight for it all you like, but you don't have a right to own a house, you don't have a right to insist that you get a special deal, you don't have a right to low interest rates.

We do have a lot of consumer rights in the UK, but the right to a free ride isn't one of them.

VIGILANT22

enay73 wrote: »

When NRAM was a sub prime lender decided to give us these kind of mortgages and I do firmly believe,

NR was not, shall I repeat WAS NOT a sub prime lender

semanticist

VIGILANT22 wrote: »

NR was not, shall I repeat WAS NOT a sub prime lender

Not by American standards, certainly. The stuff that was going on over there simply wasn't permitted here. Northern Rock did operate a niche that was outside what the mainstream providers would service, although if you'd call that 'sub-prime' I'm not sure.

In any case, no one was forced to take out a high-risk mortgage. The idea that it's 'unfair' that a high-risk mortgage is now biting you on the !!!! is just... insane. It doesn't matter how nice the house was, if you couldn't afford it you shouldn't've bought it! It's not the government's job to run your life for you - which is what they'd have to do to prevent you from ever making a bad decision.

But anyway, this thread is just awash in negativity: what can we do to build something that helps people in this situation? What options are available for us? Instead of talking about 'unfair', can we talk about how to make things better?

enay73

VIGILANT22 wrote: »

enay73 wrote: »

When NRAM was a sub prime lender decided to give us these kind of mortgages and I do firmly believe,

NR was not, shall I repeat WAS NOT a sub prime lender

Vigilant,

this is my point of view and like anybody else.
NR was a completely a bank and not just a building society. It was a bank, lending money and also could do everything like others in UK. So that is.

Thank you and have a nice day.

enay73

semanticist wrote: »

I'm not sure how you managed to go from 'You're no worse off' to 'Big business can do whatever it likes'. You're just looking to demonise someone who holds a different position than you do. Please don't do that - it helps no one.

I don't think most people in this thread understand the term 'sub-prime' - it's being used like it's something you heard on the news as a synonym for 'bad'. 'Sub-prime' specifically refers to mortgages which have a high risk of default. That includes people with high LTV ratios, people with high income multiples, or - in the US - people with half a dozen mortgages and no income.

If you're unable to change mortgage providers, I'd say that by definition your mortgage is 'sub-prime'. That's not the fault of Northern Rock - if you were with any other lender you'd be in the same position, unable to leave and subject to whims of their actuarial department. The only reason there's more people in this position with NR/NRAM is that their loan business was riskier - less 'prime', if you like. If they offered you the best deal when you took your mortgage out, it's likely because you were too far from the norm to get the best deals from a mainstream lender. What does that say about your situation?

Lots of lenders are raising their SVR (Chesham Building Society's is at 6.5%!) - Northern Rock would have had to do this regardless of if there had been a run on the bank in 2007. You're not any worse off. Really, you're not. Even if the rates increase, you're still not any worse off than you would have been if NRAM was still a trading bank.

And unless I've missed something somewhere, no one has a 'right' to a cheap mortgage. You can fight for it all you like, but you don't have a right to own a house, you don't have a right to insist that you get a special deal, you don't have a right to low interest rates.

We do have a lot of consumer rights in the UK, but the right to a free ride isn't one of them.

Semanticist,

ok, I do understand your point but let's quote something on what you have said in your post. You are saying and of course you can also look yourself on the web, that almost building society are raising SVR. How come?
Sorry but this is unbelieveable. The interests rate by BOE is 0.5% and it seems that it's still going till the end of the year, but let's see.
How these company can justify the raise of SVR??
Let's use a logical point on here. For what? Making more profits than before and then having big bonuses?
They have actually distroyed the economy, making collapse from the big company to a small individual.
Where the government is at the moment?
It is not a reality here, it's just been greedy.
We are going out the recession and they should be cautious to make this movement as the country could collapse and go in depression.
In other countries wouldn't be even allow. Do you know for example that in my country they even cannot charge more that 1.50% than the BCE interest rate?
This is one of the example how in europe it works and of course in some country how much the banks are regulated. Luckily I do not own anything in credit cards because here interests are so much higher andin other EU countries they even wouldn't allow to keep interests rate on that rage like more than 20%, because they would shut down immediately as considered sharks and unlawful.
I don't want to raise any debate here but we should look more wise and see other reality.
As I said before UK would be far better if they are a bit less greedy.
Last year when the BOE did start to lower the interest rate, Gordon Brown asked the banks to cut their interest rates as they were too far higher.
Where is he now?
It's just unbelieveable, this is a way to put in people in real difficulties and being greedy doesn't help anyone especially a weak economy.
Banks or whatever are doing their businesses but at least should be strongly regulated and avoid this joke to put in a high risk anyone who lives and try with all their own efforts to have a decent lives.
No one has the right to own a house. That's wrong, anyone has the right to own something and not be charged thousands and thousands in interests. People should have a minimum as far you have got a job, you pay for it, you pay your taxes and so on. You should be protected and gain something back.That's a part of the government, the politicians are there for help the county.
You cannot give, give and give without getting something back. This is not a way to work.

VIGILANT22

enay73 wrote: »

VIGILANT22 wrote: »

Vigilant,

this is my point of view and like anybody else.
NR was a completely a bank and not just a building society. It was a bank, lending money and also could do everything like others in UK. So that is.

Thank you and have a nice day.

Ludicrous post, go and get yourself a dictionary and look up the meaning of sub prime...If that was the case that would mean the clients all had existing credit problems..if that is the case then they're very lucky to have obtained mortgages and even luckier to have a SVR below 5%...Historically sub prime rates have been around 8-10%.....Sometimes I wonder if we should have asked people to sit an IQ test before taking on a mortgage

Mary_Hartnell

Northern Rock used to stand out as a "clever" building society; just as Cheltenham & Gloucester used to stand out as a "lean" well run building society.

Northern Rock used to run, back circa 1970 a clever little scam that involved claiming back tax relief on life insurance policies, until the government woke up and closed the loop hole. (It worked a bit like those pre "open skies" days, when you had to pretend to buy a holiday room as well, to get a cheap air flight. Had you turned up at the hotel you may have found yourself in the most over booked doss house in Europe.)

I'm sure the board members of NR, as they banked their massive bonuses for demutualising, thought this new "pass the parcel" system was the route to riches without end, as they set up "Granite" to get away from the control of the other gang running the country.
To me it smelt just like "the spiral" that bankrupted the "names" at Lloyds insurance about 15 years earlier.

For those of you, with a modest loan to value, who don't have my sense of smell; I say bad luck; but you still have the equity to pick another provider if NRAM does not improve. Remember to watch the statistics and profitability. You might have a mortgage supplier who turns out to be efficient and low cost.

To the 125% borrowers - well you are not that much worse off, because you wanted to live the dream NOW by renting someone else's money, than you would have been had you spent that extra 35% (say) on consumer durables by borrowing it elsewhere.
Vehicle finance for a nice big shiny new SUV anyone?

b0rker

Mary_Hartnell wrote: »

To the 125% borrowers - well you are not that much worse off, because you wanted to live the dream NOW by renting someone else's money, than you would have been had you spent that extra 35% (say) on consumer durables by borrowing it elsewhere.

There but for the grace of god go you.

Whether that grace is your 'god given' intellect or just good luck that you were turned down for a 125% mortgage in Spetember 2007 is something that we can only ponder upon. It would certainly explain the bitterness of your posts on here.

Either way, as many people could have paid down their affordable 125% mortgages (given time) if Northern Rock had not failed them so badly as customers, you come across as a right smug git.