I suppose we did wrong in buying a house at the height of the boom allbeit a small one so we are punished for this criminal offence.
I say its similar to a category 3 offence crime where you are fined 5k for carrying out business in a fraudulent manner. Whereas so far we are been overcharged by at least 5k.
The government therefore has treated all VM holders as criminals.
I am going to play devils advocate here for a minute - so bear with me.
I am in a totally different situation. I bought in 2011 and the houses around me that have sold recently have gone 50% higher than what I paid for mine - with very high demand for them due to location. I had a LTV of >72% on purchase, and with an aggressive overpayment strategy for the last 5 years + increase in house prices, my LTV is now >30%. I pay 3.55% with KBC, after switching from BoI last year where I was on 4.35%. LTI is about 1.5 times.
I see myself as 'ultra low risk', and if I was to default, it would be in my interest to immediately sell and clear the mortgage down and use the equity to buy somewhere cheaper. Any attempt for me to drag out the progress would only see my equity in the house reduced - the banks would always get their money back.
So if 'ultra low risk' is 3.55%, what do you feel an appropriate interest rate for yourself, in your situation, is (being honest)? You have a LTV of 130% - I don't know anything else about your situation etc. Do you feel that a LTV of 130% warrants a premium on 'normal' lending of say 80% LTV? If so, what is that premium.
The harsh reality of the situation is all SVR holders are paying the price for where we are, no matter what our personal situation is. Some can switch and do, some could switch and don't and some cannot switch at all. However, we also have to be realistic on our personal mortgage risk profile.
I notice you claim you are being overcharged on your mortgage by 5k - if you bought at the height of the boom, I assume you had the option to go on a tracker but choose not to? You have also been 'overcharged' on your house by a lot more, but again that was a personal financial decision you made. I don't think it is as clean cut as you say, there were a series of financial decisions by you that resulting in your current situation - you have to take at least some responsibility for a number of them.
*Note* you can see from other posts I have made, I do believe those who are in negative equity and LTV >80% should be protected by legislation.