dunstonh wrote: »
In June 2008 the Bank of England base rate had begun to fall from its peak of 5.75% a year earlier, and was now at 5%. I’m not persuaded HSBC could have known or predicted that the rate would fall to 0.5%, where it has remained for almost four years. I do appreciate that if they’d stayed on the reversionary rate in 2008 Mr and Mrs G would now be paying only 1.5% interest rather than HSBC’s variable rate (currently 3.94%). But I’m satisfied that Mr and Mrs G were aware of the implications of staying on the Home Buyer Mortgage variable rate in 2008. I think it likely they took into consideration the possibility of upward movement in the Bank of England base rate when they opted for another fixed rate product.
My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint
----Mr B complains that the five year fixed rate product he was advised to take out is too expensive. He says that National Westminster Bank Plc (“NatWest”) should have ‘forecast’ what interest rates would be in the future, and have advised him accordingly.
I appreciate the points that Mr B has made and I agree that, with the benefit of hind-sight, a two year fixed rate followed by a tracker rate product may well have been cheaper.
However, just because a mortgage product is not the cheapest available, does not necessarily mean that the product recommended was unsuitable, or that a cheaper product should have been recommended. Likewise, I cannot reasonably agree that NatWest could have been expected to have predicted, with any accuracy, what would happen to interest rates.
My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaintMr D says that The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc charged excessive interest on a fixed rate mortgage he took out in 2007. The regulator found that RBS had been guilty of misconduct relating to its submission of rates which formed part of the process of setting the London Interbank Offered Rate, or “LIBOR”. Mr D says that this affected interest rates available in 2007, including his fixed rate
mortgage.Our adjudicators did not recommend that the complaint should be upheld. The second adjudicator pointed out that the initial rate was fixed and the subsequent rate was not linked to LIBOR – it was for Mr D to decide whether to accept the loan on the terms offered by RBS or not.In all of the circumstances, I don’t consider that the RBS’s actions have caused Mr D to suffer any loss. In any event, Mr D agreed to a fixed rate mortgage with RBS – I don’t consider it would be fair to treat him as if he had agreed a different rate.
My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint.
kingstreet wrote: »
When I first started in the industry in the mid-80s, the only mortgages that were "securitised" into a RMBS were the prime, sub-75% "cream" of the lenders' books.
These RMBS were AAA rated by S&P and Moody's.
IMHO had that continued, we would never have had a credit crunch.
What happened is US lenders had so much money washing around, they started to chase more profitable and at the same time more risky business. They securitised sub-prime stuff, but instead of packaging all the sub-prime stuff together, it was mixed with prime and near-prime, so the buyers of the security didn't know what made up their investment.
Hence, when problems started to arise with mortgage defaults, none of them new the extent of the potential damage.
Alongside that, you had the likes of AIG and MBNA selling credit default swaps, insurance which should have been backed by collateral, being allowed to do so simply on their AAA ratings.
Eventually, the whole house of cards came tumbling down. The weekend of Lehmans demise 14/9/08, we were about I< >I away from a barter economy when HBoS was very close to being unable to open for business on the Monday morning.
It could have been a lot worse.
tomtontom wrote: »
Were you advised that this was the best product for you, or were you given a variety of products and chose which one you wanted? The key facts given to you would state whether you were advised or not.
You're never going to prove whether the banks did or did not know things were going to go tits up. I would not waste your time on such a complaint.
jonesoswestry wrote: »
I still fail to see why people think this is odd.
zizouzidane11 wrote: »
I have read every post in this thread and I still fail to see your point.
tigsly wrote: »
Did you look up what your exit fees were?
I was locked into a mortgage on a higher rate (i think it was around 5%) and worked out it was cheaper topay the 'lock in fee' .. as on my new rate - the fees would be covered if the rate remained low for 6 months.. that was 2 and 1/2 years ago!
You can't blame a bank = for you choosing a product and stiking with it for 10 years!
New plans have just been announced by the Government
DON'T assume your landlord covers you
Incl £2ish sun cream & £1.50 disposable BBQs