Northern Rock End of Mortgaged Deal (Merged Threads)

Nonshy

rovers808 wrote: »

well clearly if thats the case then NR have given you different information than they had given me. As I've said, the first message on their phonelines was an automated message which played past Dec 1st saying a DECISION would not be made until Dec 1st. I spoke to people at the call centre and had it confirmed to me they had not made a decision on the rate for my mortgage. If the bank tells me that I cant ignore it and blindly take the word of internet stories, I have to believe the paperwork they send me and the money they take out of my account.

the decision was made in November...

the SVR in november was 5.84%... together product 5.83%.

effective from january 2009.

there was never any discrepencies regarding this, was perfectly clear from the front end message when you call northern rock and from your mortgage offer... i cannot remember which section it comes under but it is written in plain english and very clear.

you are looking to blame other banks and NR for the product you took, sorry but an error on your own behalf. you haven't been ripped off... i answered your question straight away earlier, you continued debating about being "ripped off"

alan_blue

only half a percent drop but hey its better than nothing

fenwickuk

Let me get this right - the UK Government pull NR out of the mire with £27 billion of our dosh and effectively nationalise it.

The BOE reduce base rate last week by !% and UK Gov insist that lenders must pass this on in full to borrowers.

Today Northern Rock (owned by the UK Gov) announce reduction in SVR by only 0.5%.

What am I missing? Are NR taking the pee out of us the borrowers and/or the UK Gov?

rovers808

nonshy - the message was quite clear on the NR call centre line that a decision wouldnt be made until Dec 1st for together mortgages, and that is also what I was told when speaking to call centre staff. I'm not sure why you think it was anything different, or what you heard, but I rang it often enough to discuss it. The confirmation letter I got for a change of rate was sent out in late November (after the date you claim they agreed to drop it) and made no mention of a rate drop, which again I had confirmed by their call centre. Northern Rock told me they wouldnt decide what the rate would be until Dec 1st, and thats what I was told repeatedly. Thats the way they dealt with me, whether anyone else chooses to believe it, or just keep posting different historic news URLs is up to you.

Anyway, this is all academic and has now veered WAY off topic. /end thread

MarkyMarkD

fenwickuk wrote: »

Let me get this right - the UK Government pull NR out of the mire with £27 billion of our dosh and effectively nationalise it.

The BOE reduce base rate last week by !% and UK Gov insist that lenders must pass this on in full to borrowers.

Today Northern Rock (owned by the UK Gov) announce reduction in SVR by only 0.5%.

What am I missing? Are NR taking the pee out of us the borrowers and/or the UK Gov?

No, let me get this right.

The UK Government stole NR from its shareholders, and has paid them not a penny for their asset.

NR had been lending money at rates which were too cheap, to people who shouldn't have been able to get mortgages at all.

And now that NR (i.e. the government, because they are in charge) is starting to charge those risky borrowers a fair rate for the very risky loans - which thousands of customers are defaulting on - they are getting slagged off.

Do you seriously believe that the government (i.e. taxpayer) owned Northern Rock should lose money on its Together mortgages? Or maybe they should charge a fair market rate of interest.

Those borrowers who are truly low risk can remortgage elsewhere - and NR is encouraging them to do so when their product tie-in period ends.

Those who can't switch, should realise that there is a reason for it. They are now - at last - paying the fair cost of their mortgages having had an easy ride prior to NR's collapse.

Nonshy

Just because NR is owned by Government doesn't not mean they run the business and make business decisions!

How can NR possibly return to private ownership if cutting rates at BOE's say so?

More debt, more cost, longer in state ownership... customers are not getting a tough deal.

SVR of 5.34% is very reasonable.

Cutting rates too much discourages savers... no savings no new business... FTB can't get mortgages, houses don't sell, prices fall even more, increased negative equity... no one can move home.

kingkano

Nonshy wrote: »

Cutting rates too much discourages savers... no savings no new business... FTB can't get mortgages, houses don't sell, prices fall even more, increased negative equity... no one can move home.

Sadly they are still planning to slash savings rates. Their mortgage rate decision doesn't necessarily correlate to their savings rates decisions :rolleyes:

MarkyMarkD wrote:

NR had been lending money at rates which were too cheap, to people who shouldn't have been able to get mortgages at all.

And now that NR (i.e. the government, because they are in charge) is starting to charge those risky borrowers a fair rate for the very risky loans - which thousands of customers are defaulting on - they are getting slagged off.

Not necessarily true. NR weren't just a lender for the desperate, they were one of the largest lenders in the land. They offered great rates to alot of people alone with maximum flexibility.

Even people who were quite modest in their borrowings, 10% deposit 2 or 3 yrs ago, are now having trouble remortgaging away from NR as banks want 25-40% equity (not many 10% deals). Should they really be considered a risky borrower just because the market has moved against them?

I agree with the Together bit. Personally I always thought this a bit of a stretch and some of the people getting mortgages at NR shouldn't have been.... (just pointing out you can't slag all NR mortgagees with the same brush)

Nonshy

kingkano wrote: »

Sadly they are still planning to slash savings rates. Their mortgage rate decision doesn't necessarily correlate to their savings rates decisions :rolleyes:

Course they will reduce savings rates... they can't be offering low mortgage rates and high savings rates.

The SVR is very reasonable imo and savers need to be thought about when all these bank cuts are being passed on to the borrowers.

Savers have done nothing wrong in all this and they seem to be the ones punished.

fenwickuk

MarkyMarkD - You have not got it right
A case of 'Do as I say' not 'Do as I do'
Hypocricy or what

Nonshy

fenwickuk wrote: »

MarkyMarkD - You have not got it right
A case of 'Do as I say' not 'Do as I do'
Hypocricy or what

Can you clarify what point you're attempting to make?