Does anyone work for Northern Rock?????

homer_j_3

Its not about TCF though Dan is it really. TCF doesn't mean that the customer should get everything. The lender is treating them fairly by saying even though you do not fit our lending profile now, we are prepared to let you keep your mortgage with us.

I do hope that the FSA, Government and Industry can work something out but I cannot see it yet. Give it a year or 2 and I believe that there will be options for existing borrowers again.

The fact will be at this point is that they cannot borrow the money to refinance the deals. So what can be done?

UK007BullDog

I don't agree with this. NR is leaving the 100% plus borrowers in very bad situations and they are now penelised by high rates. That is not fair, especially since they took those ridiculous fees as well at the start of the mortgage. I think TFC does play a part in this.

homer_j_3

My understanding of TCF must be different to yours but that aside, how would NR fund such a deal to customers? They are borrowing at more expensive rates.

Its not just as simple of saying, we will just charge you a different rate. NR has to go and get the funding for this.

As I said in my post earlier - I hope something can be worked out but what the answer is, I do not know.

Coming back to TCF -

Has the lender been clear in what they are doing? What was issued in the KFI about the mortgage at the end of the preferential rate period?

IMO - they are fulfilling what they promised to do. Just because they would normally do it, the current climate does not permit them to do this. They are treating customers fairly.

As I said, TCF is not about lenders bowing to the needs of every borrower - its about them setting out what they will do in a transparent way and that is what they have done.

HelpWhereIcan

Done one ported case with Northern Rock this year and have another waiting to go in.

The first was processed within normal NR standards (read into that what you will) and I have just run the decision in principle for the other to see how much they would be able to borrow for the new property.

Customer got a multiple that would indicate a high credit score which would seem to indicate that they are not actively discouraging all applications or that their score is hugely tougher than it was.

I would suspect that LTV may play a part for Northern Rock but my customer is looking for 90%, an increased loan and wanting to port a 5.19% fixed so would not think he would be 'ideal' for a lender looking to actively discourage all but the most risk free of borrowing.

Unfortunately things like this are the problems with relying on porting a deal with any lender - not just Northern Rock.

You can never be sure that their criteria etc will continue to be favourable to you in the future.

I had a case a couple of years back with Nationwide where a 'clean' customer failed credit score completely and Nationwide would not consider their application to port at all.

They just did not suit the profile of customer Nationwide were looking for at the time which could be anything from income and occupation to postcode and amount of credit card limits available (or all of them).

Conrad

2.8 x income is a perfcetly generous income multiple, afterall the press keep screaming lenders and brokers lend too much, well welcome to the new world where we lend you a lot less.

Dan_Collins_2

I was using TCF as a example, not that this subject is covered within it! What bugs me is, if I leave a customer high and dry I am not treating them fairly. Lenders can do what they like!

Imagine you borrowed 100% and now your told its the SVR or cya about! With all lenders pulling out that have no choice. The least they can do is finance products for existing 100% borrowers. They brought out these crazy products, they are now paying for being to relaxed and now they need to help the clients they reeled in!

TighterThanTwoCoatsOfPain

I thought the 'norm' for Joint Applicants was 2.5 when i was trying to borrow to the limit last (about 7-8 years ago)... 2.8 atm doesnt sound too hurrendous...

homer_j_3

Dan

I think what you are trying to say is that there needs to be some guidance on where the duty of care starts and ends.

I am watching this space as the government have said to the BBA that they will allow NR to have a market advantage so the government either will have no option to say SVR or get onto another lender. If they were to help, they would have all the other 125% lenders saying, we want the same help for our clients. Mr Taxpayer would be livid, I am sure.

If there was even the slightest snifter of "We will look to help people remortgage by doing something with the unsecured part" - the secured part may even be over 100% if property values drop.

There will be no aid to these people, there will be no soft landing if people cannot afford SVR. Your clients and all those in this position will have to tighten the belts and do what they can to keep their heads above water until the situation calms down.

Even then, I cannot see them reintroducing these types of products, unless they are a remortgage only type deal to help existing borrowers on these deals.

going2die_rich

pickles_pink wrote: »

I'm just completely bamboozled by this appalling multiple - obviously now we have a mortgage search too!!!

"appalling"? It's actually a good thing since it is lending more closer to affordability than just throwing money at anyone who wants it with silly multiples of 5x like some banks have. I am sure NR was the same, but that time is gone (for now). So you best get use to the tighter requirements. If you feel hard done by, think about first time buyers that now also have to try and find 10% deposits before getting a proeprty of their own.

pickles_pink

Hi all.

I called them today and they have increased their offer, thankfully - On what grounds I do not know, but it is affordable - easily and I think they realised that.

:T

Not really sure what they're doing!