Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 7)

[bitchstewie]

[TTmonkey]

[JeffreyD]

I mean it's fking hideous and they definitely "saw them coming" but how are these pictures getting into the public domain?

Surely a massive security breach?

[vonuber]

It's a shame these leaseholders don't have a few donors to help out:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/27/vo...

Love this government, really one for the people.

[Condi]

vonuber said:

It's a shame these leaseholders don't have a few donors to help out:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/27/vo...

Love this government, really one for the people.

Or these people, who's mortgages were taken over by the government (via Northern Rock), then sold to an American investment firm for £5.5bn, despite a total lifetime value of £13.5bn when Osbourne was in number 11. They are now stuck with their mortgages own by an unregulated US finance house, paying well over what they would get if they were able to move deals. So far this Government have failed to act and told MPs to vote with the Party when the issue came to parliament recently. They were worried that intervening would set a "bad precedent".

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/may/25/hope...

Levelling up has never looked so uneven. NHS contract for my sister, expensive mortgage for the poor people who's only crime was to have taken on a Northern Rock product. Expensive wallpaper for me, no help with cladding costs for you. Trips abroad on the public purse for my blonde mistress, no free school meals over holidays for the kids who can't afford it.

I defy anyone to actually defend this bullst.

[Cheburator mk2]

Condi said:

Or these people, who's mortgages were taken over by the government (via Northern Rock), then sold to an American investment firm for £5.5bn, despite a total lifetime value of £13.5bn when Osbourne was in number 11. They are now stuck with their mortgages own by an unregulated US finance house, paying well over what they would get if they were able to move deals. So far this Government have failed to act and told MPs to vote with the Party when the issue came to parliament recently. They were worried that intervening would set a "bad precedent".

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/may/25/hope...

Levelling up has never looked so uneven. NHS contract for my sister, expensive mortgage for the poor people who's only crime was to have taken on a Northern Rock product. Expensive wallpaper for me, no help with cladding costs for you. Trips abroad on the public purse for my blonde mistress, no free school meals over holidays for the kids who can't afford it.

I defy anyone to actually defend this bullst.

But he got Brexit done...

Where is the irony smiley when you need one?

Sadly you are right...

[frisbee]

TTmonkey said:

Come on Boris Ultras, defend that!

[Pupp]

frisbee said:

TTmonkey said:

Come on Boris Ultras, defend that!

[Sway]

Condi said:

vonuber said:

It's a shame these leaseholders don't have a few donors to help out:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/27/vo...

Love this government, really one for the people.

Or these people, who's mortgages were taken over by the government (via Northern Rock), then sold to an American investment firm for £5.5bn, despite a total lifetime value of £13.5bn when Osbourne was in number 11. They are now stuck with their mortgages own by an unregulated US finance house, paying well over what they would get if they were able to move deals. So far this Government have failed to act and told MPs to vote with the Party when the issue came to parliament recently. They were worried that intervening would set a "bad precedent".

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/may/25/hope...

Levelling up has never looked so uneven. NHS contract for my sister, expensive mortgage for the poor people who's only crime was to have taken on a Northern Rock product. Expensive wallpaper for me, no help with cladding costs for you. Trips abroad on the public purse for my blonde mistress, no free school meals over holidays for the kids who can't afford it.

I defy anyone to actually defend this bullst.

So you're suggesting the affordability rules should be relaxed, specifically for them?

Or that negative equity and existing loan commitments should be ignored /written off?

[anonymous-user]

Condi said:

vonuber said:

It's a shame these leaseholders don't have a few donors to help out:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/27/vo...

Love this government, really one for the people.

Or these people, who's mortgages were taken over by the government (via Northern Rock), then sold to an American investment firm for £5.5bn, despite a total lifetime value of £13.5bn when Osbourne was in number 11. They are now stuck with their mortgages own by an unregulated US finance house, paying well over what they would get if they were able to move deals. So far this Government have failed to act and told MPs to vote with the Party when the issue came to parliament recently. They were worried that intervening would set a "bad precedent".

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/may/25/hope...

Levelling up has never looked so uneven. NHS contract for my sister, expensive mortgage for the poor people who's only crime was to have taken on a Northern Rock product. Expensive wallpaper for me, no help with cladding costs for you. Trips abroad on the public purse for my blonde mistress, no free school meals over holidays for the kids who can't afford it.

I defy anyone to actually defend this bullst.

Not sure I follow?

I was a NR customer, then shunted to NRAM in the recession when I nearly went bankrupt in 2009, then Landmark Mortgages paying over the odds yes.

I recovered and remortgaged two years ago.

Nobody is a captive customer

[Sway]

digimeistter said:

Not sure I follow?

I was a NR customer, then shunted to NRAM in the recession when I nearly went bankrupt in 2009, then Landmark Mortgages paying over the odds yes.

I recovered and remortgaged two years ago.

Nobody is a captive customer

According to the article they are if:

The don't meet the tightened affordability rules put in place to prevent a repeat.

Or they're in negative equity.

Or they have an outstanding loan under a product that permitted 125% mortgages that they can't repay.

Not sure what exactly people want here - the suggestion is that we just loosen the rules, cause of course it's not their fault...

They're higher interest for a reason. They're higher risk.

[Condi]

Sway said:

So you're suggesting the affordability rules should be relaxed, specifically for them?

Or that negative equity and existing loan commitments should be ignored /written off?

No, neither. As I understand it, were they with a bank which offered new mortgage products they would be able to move to a more favourable deal on a lower rate, but because the company their mortgages were sold to do not offer new products they cannot move to a different bank, yes because of affordability rules. It is not unreasonable to ask if the US company are doing things which wouldn't be allowed had they been fully regulated and it is also not unreasonable that these former Northern Rock customers are not unfairly or unduly disadvantaged vs a customer in a similar position with another bank. At the moment they are being unduly disadvantaged.

The motion which was debated in parliament would have put a cap on the mortgage rate relative to the BoE base rate, still allowing the US company to get a reasonably ROI but protecting customers who at the moment have little or no protection at all as the company is outside the protection of the FCA.

Surely it is a fundamental principle that someone who's debt was taken over by the government is not treated in a worse way than someone who's debt was not taken over by the government? The customers had no say in this situation, and yet it is costing them thousands and the current government are standing in the way of Parliament's attempts to correct the disparity. Is that "levelling up" to you?

[Sway]

Condi said:

Sway said:

So you're suggesting the affordability rules should be relaxed, specifically for them?

Or that negative equity and existing loan commitments should be ignored /written off?

No, neither. As I understand it, were they with a bank which offered new mortgage products they would be able to move to a more favourable deal on a lower rate, but because the company their mortgages were sold to do not offer new products they cannot move to a different bank, yes because of affordability rules. It is not unreasonable to ask if the US company are doing things which wouldn't be allowed had they been fully regulated and it is also not unreasonable that these former Northern Rock customers are not unfairly or unduly disadvantaged vs a customer in a similar position with another bank. At the moment they are being unduly disadvantaged.

The motion which was debated in parliament would have put a cap on the mortgage rate relative to the BoE base rate, still allowing the US company to get a reasonably ROI but protecting customers who at the moment have little or no protection at all as the company is outside the protection of the FCA.

Surely it is a fundamental principle that someone who's debt was taken over by the government is not treated in a worse way than someone who's debt was not taken over by the government? The customers had no say in this situation, and yet it is costing them thousands and the current government are standing in the way of Parliament's attempts to correct the disparity. Is that "levelling up" to you?

The purchaser isn't offering new mortgages. Should they be forced to?

They're not eligible to move due to affordability rules - so even if this purchaser (which I'll note the article doesn't explain what percentage of the estimated 15k people) did offer new products, these customers still wouldn't be eligible...

So they're not being treated worse because the government bought their debt. They're being treated worse as the don't meet affordability criteria or are in negative equity.

Nothing you've written makes sense as a solution.

The only solutions to 'free' these people are:

Loosen the affordability rules
Ignore negative equity
Write off loan debts they can't repay when remortgaging

None of those seem like good ideas.

I'll also point out it's a particularly egregious use of 'levelling up' to focus on 15 thousand people out of a population of 70 odd million...

[anonymous-user]

I wonder what terms Boris got on his personal loan, and whether it was regulated?

[Condi]

Sway said:

They're not eligible to move due to affordability rules - so even if this purchaser (which I'll note the article doesn't explain what percentage of the estimated 15k people) did offer new products, these customers still wouldn't be eligible...

AFAIK that is not correct. People with existing lenders who do offer new products are allowed to transfer to cheaper mortgages, hence the issue with the former NR customers who cannot, as the US company which bought the debt does not offer new products and is simply collecting the repayments or the whole sum if and when some customers remortgage with another bank.

[JeffreyD]

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:

I wonder what terms Boris got on his personal loan, and whether it was regulated?

Looks like a cracking deal for the bloke who leant the money.

Kerfkingching for him.

[Sway]

Condi said:

Sway said:

They're not eligible to move due to affordability rules - so even if this purchaser (which I'll note the article doesn't explain what percentage of the estimated 15k people) did offer new products, these customers still wouldn't be eligible...

AFAIK that is not correct. People with existing lenders who do offer new products are allowed to transfer to cheaper mortgages, hence the issue with the former NR customers who cannot, as the US company which bought the debt does not offer new products and is simply collecting the repayments or the whole sum if and when some customers remortgage with another bank.

Remortgaging doesn't bypass affordability rules...

[Condi]

Sway said:

Condi said:

Sway said:

They're not eligible to move due to affordability rules - so even if this purchaser (which I'll note the article doesn't explain what percentage of the estimated 15k people) did offer new products, these customers still wouldn't be eligible...

AFAIK that is not correct. People with existing lenders who do offer new products are allowed to transfer to cheaper mortgages, hence the issue with the former NR customers who cannot, as the US company which bought the debt does not offer new products and is simply collecting the repayments or the whole sum if and when some customers remortgage with another bank.

Remortgaging doesn't bypass affordability rules...

Not so, it even says so in the article I linked to....

"David Hollingworth at mortgage broker London & Country welcomes these initiatives. He says that after the original mortgage market review in 2014, lenders were given special provisions to offer deals to people who did not fit their standard rules. But lenders did not use these to take on borrowers from other companies. And when the European mortgage credit directive came into force in 2016, lenders interpreted it as meaning they could not take on these customers."

So people with a provider who offered new (cheaper) products were allowed to move their customers over irrespective of the affordability rules, but did not accept customers from other providers. And that is why the NR customers are disadvantaged because the company which owns the debt does not offer mortgages in the UK and so cannot move their customers to a better deal.

All the NR customers want is to be treated the same as customers of other companies, and the Tory party are standing in the way of legislation which would have somewhat levelled the field.

[vonuber]

Sway said:

So you're suggesting the affordability rules should be relaxed, specifically for them?

Or that negative equity and existing loan commitments should be ignored /written off?

I assume you think that the people who have been hit by the cladding costs should just suck it up as well?

Or how about this:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/27/dr...

[Sway]

Condi said:

Sway said:

Condi said:

Sway said:

They're not eligible to move due to affordability rules - so even if this purchaser (which I'll note the article doesn't explain what percentage of the estimated 15k people) did offer new products, these customers still wouldn't be eligible...

AFAIK that is not correct. People with existing lenders who do offer new products are allowed to transfer to cheaper mortgages, hence the issue with the former NR customers who cannot, as the US company which bought the debt does not offer new products and is simply collecting the repayments or the whole sum if and when some customers remortgage with another bank.

Remortgaging doesn't bypass affordability rules...

Not so, it even says so in the article I linked to....

"David Hollingworth at mortgage broker London & Country welcomes these initiatives. He says that after the original mortgage market review in 2014, lenders were given special provisions to offer deals to people who did not fit their standard rules. But lenders did not use these to take on borrowers from other companies. And when the European mortgage credit directive came into force in 2016, lenders interpreted it as meaning they could not take on these customers."

So people with a provider who offered new (cheaper) products were allowed to move their customers over irrespective of the affordability rules, but did not accept customers from other providers. And that is why the NR customers are disadvantaged because the company which owns the debt does not offer mortgages in the UK and so cannot move their customers to a better deal.

All the NR customers want is to be treated the same as customers of other companies, and the Tory party are standing in the way of legislation which would have somewhat levelled the field.

So when you said you didn't support the affordability rules being relaxed for these people, you actually meant that yes, they should?

If it's a false interpretation of the 2016 directive, then it's a simple process for the regulator to clarify this. Seems there's a reason they haven't... Seems the broker might not have the full details (and can't think of an incentive for a mortgage broker to get involved in supporting this...).

You'll note that it's not all the customers who are under the US purchaser - and there's two other reasons why they might be 'trapped' which no lender is going to touch with a bargepole without being forced (quite rightly, why should they take on someone in negative equity or a massive debt they can't repay?).