Gordon Gekko
Registered User
- Messages
- 7,879
I do think it’s too much to ask.@gordon Ghekko and Clubman,
I'm sure you both have the choice to fix your mortgage to protect yourself from ECB rate rises!
Our complaint is those of us transferred to Vultures funds can not fix and have seen our mortgages rise a couple of hundred a month. Yes a month!!!
Do you still think this is right, yes contracts may have been breached at one stage but most of us got back on track before we were thrown to wolves. Should we be punished for a lifetime because of this, I don't think so.
Please think before you speak, there are real people and families struggling because of this. We expect to be treated fairly and offered fix rates like the rest of borrowers to have some certainty and protection. I don't think that's too much to ask!
But that would mean that the contracted terms and conditions changed after drawing down the loan? Maybe a fairer comparison might be between those borrowers that were moved to vulture funds and those borrowers whose loans were retained by their original lender? Or what happens with other types of financing, car loans for example, does the interest rate increase if loans are not repaid as per the original schedule?I do think it’s too much to ask.
You, and others, have brought emotion into it.
You, and others, are high risk borrowers who entered into loan agreements and did not adhere to them.
There shouldn’t be an automatic entitlement to a fixed rate. Banks and funds are commercial entities that should be allowed to price risk accordingly.
If these borrowers weren’t still impaired in some way, they’d be able to switch to another provider. What they actually seem to want is for everyone else to subsidise them.
Give prime rates to prime borrowers and levy higher rates on borrowers who renege on their loan agreements.
This may be unpleasant for those affected by it, but it’s fair.
Yes Brendan they did review it about a week after I posted. The problem is I can pay a decent amount every month but now I can’t it’s become too much, and there are too many increases one after the other that I would never have predicted, I will update on the reply I get for the SFS reviewHi Westirl
You should start a new thread.
Case study - Information required for mortgage arrears and negative equity questions
Please copy and paste this post into a new thread. If you give comprehensive information, it will maximise your chances of getting comprehensive and useful results. Income details Net monthly (i.e. after tax) Income self: nature of income e.g. self-employed/public servant...www.askaboutmoney.com
From this recent thread, you had a great deal but I assume that they have reviewed it.
Pepper Split Mortgage - €250k capital to reduce it?
They clearly set the capital repayment against the interest-bearing part of the mortgage. It now means that most of your repayment, is clearing down the capital. After your repayment on 19/9 , your balance was €297,009 They added net interest of €262 to bring it up to €297, 271 And then you...www.askaboutmoney.com
Give prime rates to prime borrowers and levy higher rates on borrowers who renege on their loan agreements.
Standard variable rates were 17.5% if not higher as recently as 1992. How can a regulatory upper limit apply without wiping out lenders were some 9/11-type event to happen unexpectedly causing the cost of funds to rocket exponentially?The issue is that there is no regulatory upper limit on what a lender can charge a customer and as we all know these customers can't switch. Maybe you think 7.5% is reasonably but why not 17.5%? That's what these lenders could in principle charge and it would be absolutely ruinous for thousands of people.
I'm as much of a free market guy as you'll get and think that an informed group of consumer is the best protection against an unscrupulous provider. But I even I acknowledge that many people are simply ignorant or vulnerable and need legal protection from providers who would otherwise rip them off
You're a serious poster Gordon and I'm keen to learn if you think what, if any, rate would be too much for this cohort. If there is such a thing as a too-high rate then why shouldn't be set out in statute?
You would set it X basis points above some benchmark like the ECB MRO or EURIBOR. Enough to allow lenders to make a profit without gouging customers.How can a regulatory upper limit apply without wiping out lenders were some 9/11-type event to happen unexpectedly causing the cost of funds to rocket exponentially?
The danger with doing something like that is that the specified maximum becomes a target. That's an occupational hazard with price controls.You would set it X basis points above some benchmark like the ECB MRO or EURIBOR. Enough to allow lenders to make a profit without gouging customers.
There are already interest rate limits on moneylenders AFAIK. The principle is already established.
A contract should contain terms and conditions that apply in the event that the consumer party ceases to adhere to other terms and conditions.The contracted terms and conditions become something of a moot point when the borrower ceases to adhere to them in the first instance.
The point to remember here is that it wasn’t just ‘non performing’ mortgages that were sold to Pepper, it was also all the ‘performing’ mortgages of the departing banks such as Danske.I do think it’s too much to ask.
You, and others, have brought emotion into it.
You, and others, are high risk borrowers who entered into loan agreements and did not adhere to them.
There shouldn’t be an automatic entitlement to a fixed rate. Banks and funds are commercial entities that should be allowed to price risk accordingly.
If these borrowers weren’t still impaired in some way, they’d be able to switch to another provider. What they actually seem to want is for everyone else to subsidise them.
Give prime rates to prime borrowers and levy higher rates on borrowers who renege on their loan agreements.
This may be unpleasant for those affected by it, but it’s fair.
If they’re performing and 100% prime, then why can’t those mortgageholders switch?The point to remember here is that it wasn’t just ‘non performing’ mortgages that were sold to Pepper, it was also all the ‘performing’ mortgages of the departing banks such as Danske.
There was no provision or sufficient consumer protection in 2014 to transfer our performing mortgages to functioning banks such as happened recently with KBC and Ulster leaving the country.
Gordon, to switch would cost the bare minimum of legal fees, valuation fees etc Why should these borrowers have to pay that?If they’re performing and 100% prime, then why can’t those mortgageholders switch?
That’s what anyone has to pay when they switch to get a better rate!Gordon, to switch would cost the bare minimum of legal fees, valuation fees etc Why should these borrowers have to pay that?
Maybe because Central Bank macroprudential rules exist today but didn't when their mortgage was originated.If they’re performing and 100% prime, then why can’t those mortgageholders switch?
Rules which don’t apply to switchers!Maybe because Central Bank macroprudential rules exist today but didn't when their mortgage was originated.
If they’re performing and 100% prime, then why can’t those mortgageholders switch?
The Central Bank should work with high street lenders to introduce ‘modified affordability tests’ for mortgage prisoners,
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?