Remortgaged house to go on holiday
Discussion
Never new that was a thing. am i missing something but seems a bit silly. not sure if more to it, such as dying wish of family member or something which i can understand more, but just for a nice holiday?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53421787
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53421787
Insane, I do however know of a couple who have downsized several times to pay off debt, only to run up the debt again and need to downsize again. They once owned a nice house and now live in a small flat with absolutely nothing to show for it.
Strangely enough their son and his wife did a similar thing, remortgaging their house for more and more every few years once the value had increased and paying off their debt with the increased mortgage amount. They have just got divorced, sold the house and have essentially got nothing to show for owning property for the last 20 years.
Maybe this is the new normal?
Strangely enough their son and his wife did a similar thing, remortgaging their house for more and more every few years once the value had increased and paying off their debt with the increased mortgage amount. They have just got divorced, sold the house and have essentially got nothing to show for owning property for the last 20 years.
Maybe this is the new normal?
"I'm f
ked because I can't get a refund and need the money"
You'd have been just as fked if you'd had the trip, you've still spent it.
I can understand the argument that people are being denied money they need and should be given back, but people need to think their arguments through a bit. Good clickbait though.
ked because I can't get a refund and need the money"You'd have been just as f
ked if you'd had the trip, you've still spent it. I can understand the argument that people are being denied money they need and should be given back, but people need to think their arguments through a bit. Good clickbait though.
theplayingmantis said:
they should obviously get there money back, but the mindset to remortgage simply to go on an expensive holiday is baffling and in my perhaps naive mind, very stupid and not a sustainable way to live.
I do really agree, but I guess if it was a one off and not a ridiculous sum of money (which £6700 isn't that ridiculous in the grand scheme of things) it isn't exactly financial crime of the century. If it became habitual etc then that would be different.pquinn said:
"I'm fked because I can't get a refund and need the money"
You'd have been just as fked if you'd had the trip, you've still spent it.
I can understand the argument that people are being denied money they need and should be given back, but people need to think their arguments through a bit. Good clickbait though.
Well arguably they'll be better off in the short term than they would have been had they not taken the nuts decision to remortgage. I don't suppose their repayments have gone up that much but at least now they will have an extra £6k to tide them over whilst they look for work. ked because I can't get a refund and need the money"You'd have been just as f
ked if you'd had the trip, you've still spent it. I can understand the argument that people are being denied money they need and should be given back, but people need to think their arguments through a bit. Good clickbait though.
PeteinSQ said:
I do really agree, but I guess if it was a one off and not a ridiculous sum of money (which £6700 isn't that ridiculous in the grand scheme of things) it isn't exactly financial crime of the century. If it became habitual etc then that would be different.
And way more sensible than borrowing on a credit card.pquinn said:
"I'm fked because I can't get a refund and need the money"
You'd have been just as fked if you'd had the trip, you've still spent it.
I can understand the argument that people are being denied money they need and should be given back, but people need to think their arguments through a bit. Good clickbait though.
Exactly, there are other threads on the subject and the hard truth is the companies don't have the cash to refund everyone they've had to pay huge bills themselves for 3-4 months with almost no income.ked because I can't get a refund and need the money"You'd have been just as f
ked if you'd had the trip, you've still spent it. I can understand the argument that people are being denied money they need and should be given back, but people need to think their arguments through a bit. Good clickbait though.
They have keep customer service teams on furlough because bringing them back means money leaves the business faster. the 7 and 14 day refund legislation was not written with the current scenario in mind.
Refunds do need to come but they need to dealt with in order of need so those who have lost employment get the money back now.
andburg said:
Exactly, there are other threads on the subject and the hard truth is the companies don't have the cash to refund everyone they've had to pay huge bills themselves for 3-4 months with almost no income.
They have keep customer service teams on furlough because bringing them back means money leaves the business faster. the 7 and 14 day refund legislation was not written with the current scenario in mind.
Refunds do need to come but they need to dealt with in order of need so those who have lost employment get the money back now.
that describes the family in the story though?They have keep customer service teams on furlough because bringing them back means money leaves the business faster. the 7 and 14 day refund legislation was not written with the current scenario in mind.
Refunds do need to come but they need to dealt with in order of need so those who have lost employment get the money back now.
Using additional mortgage borrowing can often get you better interest rate than a personal loan or other type of consumer credit, so it can definitely make sense as a funding option.
Whether it makes sense to borrow money for a holiday is another question, if it was a special one-off trip and time sensitive due to kid’s ages or a family member’s health then I could see it making sense to go for now and repay later.
As for their case, who knows the specifics.
Whether it makes sense to borrow money for a holiday is another question, if it was a special one-off trip and time sensitive due to kid’s ages or a family member’s health then I could see it making sense to go for now and repay later.
As for their case, who knows the specifics.
On the face of it remortgaging for a holiday is dumb. But if they've owned the house for 20 years and owed a pittance and have extended for ten years to do something that would have taken them ten to save for why not?
The real issue here isn't actually the couple's finances it's the company that has a duty to provide a refund hanging onto the cash. Which again is understandable to a degree right now.
The real issue here isn't actually the couple's finances it's the company that has a duty to provide a refund hanging onto the cash. Which again is understandable to a degree right now.
PeteinSQ said:
theplayingmantis said:
they should obviously get there money back, but the mindset to remortgage simply to go on an expensive holiday is baffling and in my perhaps naive mind, very stupid and not a sustainable way to live.
I do really agree, but I guess if it was a one off and not a ridiculous sum of money (which £6700 isn't that ridiculous in the grand scheme of things) it isn't exactly financial crime of the century. If it became habitual etc then that would be different.Joey Deacon said:
Insane, I do however know of a couple who have downsized several times to pay off debt, only to run up the debt again and need to downsize again. They once owned a nice house and now live in a small flat with absolutely nothing to show for it.
Strangely enough their son and his wife did a similar thing, remortgaging their house for more and more every few years once the value had increased and paying off their debt with the increased mortgage amount. They have just got divorced, sold the house and have essentially got nothing to show for owning property for the last 20 years.
Maybe this is the new normal?
London? My Brother and Sister In laws? Seemed really common for them all to have storecards to the limit, £800-1000 minimum payment only made, off to get another storecard 'so we can live'.Strangely enough their son and his wife did a similar thing, remortgaging their house for more and more every few years once the value had increased and paying off their debt with the increased mortgage amount. They have just got divorced, sold the house and have essentially got nothing to show for owning property for the last 20 years.
Maybe this is the new normal?
Mind you the parents eventually die and leave them money so allowing them to start again...
Byker28i said:
London? My Brother and Sister In laws? Seemed really common for them all to have storecards to the limit, £800-1000 minimum payment only made, off to get another storecard 'so we can live'.
Mind you the parents eventually die and leave them money so allowing them to start again...
The idea of parents dying and leaving money to the children only works until they end up in a nursing home needing constant care for various medical reasons, dementia being a big one, suddenly all their cash is used to fund the care along with proceeds of the house sale and there's next to nothing left in the end. I have seen it happen personally more than once. Mind you the parents eventually die and leave them money so allowing them to start again...
RammyMP said:
Chap I work with remortgaged his house and spent the money on a new car. He said the repayments were cheaper if he got it on finance. I tried to explain that he will still be paying for the car Long after it has been scrapped. He didn’t get my argument.
It depends though doesn't it, if I borrowed £10k for a car over 4 years from somewhere else I'd pay back £11k or so, but that would be 11k less going into the mortgage, so I'd still be paying off the car at the end of the mortgage term wherever the money comes from. The mortgage is a cheaper way to borrow the money.The same argument applies to any non-essential spending; don't do it and the mortgage will be paid off sooner and you'll pay less interest overall. Everything you spend gets added to the mortgage one way or another.
If the argument is that by putting it on the mortgage you end up paying down the debt over a longer period rather than the £10k as extra repayments over the first 4 years, if you take out a loan or whatever and that means you spend more money on other crap, then that's fair enough, but that's an argument about spending rather than where the money comes from.
My first mortgage was an offset where the offset was simply a current account, wages went in, spending went out, interest was applied and the balance was -£xxx,xxx. Literally everything I spent (and earned) got added to the mortgage.
I much preferred that to my current mortgage where the offset is a separate account and I'm making a repayment each month, that option got stuffed by the changes to lending rules that mean I have to be seen to be making a repayment each month, even if I can go and get the capital element back if I want to. Makes all my spreadsheets messy!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff