Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 7)
Discussion
Sway said:
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?).
So you're now saying the article, or the mortgage expert in it is wrong? 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?).
It's really very simple, and I don't know which bit you are struggling to understand. Customers who were caught in this "trap" were allowed to move to a cheaper product with the same company, however former NR customers are with a company who do not offer new products and so were unable to take advantage of the relaxation of the rules. This means that that small number of former NR customers are disadvantaged compared with a customer of Barclays in the same position.
You say "massive debt they cannot repay" and yet if they are currently paying off a mortgage at 5%, they'd easily be able to pay a mortgage at 2% - this being the justification for the relaxation of rules in 2014.
It's really scraping the barrel when your argument has been reduced to "well the mortgage expert is wrong", unless you are now going to tell us you are in some way a mortgage professional who understands regulated banking and MIFID rules regarding affordability.
vonuber 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?
I assume you think that the people who have been hit by the cladding costs should just suck it up as well?Or that negative equity and existing loan commitments should be ignored /written off?
Or how about this:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/27/dr...
The cladding thing I really cannot come to a conclusion on. It's an utter s
t show - and from what I can tell, there's no clear direction of blame. Certainly not on the leaseholders, nor the freeholders - equally, it doesn't seem something the wider taxpayer should pick up, and councils are fked. Condi said:
Sway said:
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?).
So you're now saying the article, or the mortgage expert in it is wrong? 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?).
It's really very simple, and I don't know which bit you are struggling to understand. Customers who were caught in this "trap" were allowed to move to a cheaper product with the same company, however former NR customers are with a company who do not offer new products and so were unable to take advantage of the relaxation of the rules. This means that that small number of former NR customers are disadvantaged compared with a customer of Barclays in the same position. there's no evidence in that article that companies relaxed affordability rules in order to move people to cheaper products... If the alternative lenders aren't offering products using this 'dispensation' to relax affordability rule through misinterpretation of the 2016 Directive, then it's as straightforward as the FCA explaining they are wrongly interpreting the directive. They're not, which implies the mortgage broker isn't conveying the full story...
You say "massive debt they cannot repay" and yet if they are currently paying off a mortgage at 5%, they'd easily be able to pay a mortgage at 2% - this being the justification for the relaxation of rules in 2014. The "massive debt" is the specific product that permitted 125% mortgages with the balance seemingly being a loan that's repayable in full at the point of remortgage. It's one of the four reasons given for these people being 'trapped' - yet you seem to have missed that (and are also ignoring the negative equity cohort... Can't think why.
It's really scraping the barrel when your argument has been reduced to "well the mortgage expert is wrong", unless you are now going to tell us you are in some way a mortgage professional who understands regulated banking and MIFID rules regarding affordability.
That also only applies to two of the four reasons (only looking at 50% of the cause would seem to be the definition of scraping the barrel) - and funnily enough there's no breakdown of the numbers in each cohort.
Sway said:
Pretty incredible whataboutism and assumptions making an ass of you there...
The cladding thing I really cannot come to a conclusion on. It's an utter st show - and from what I can tell, there's no clear direction of blame. Certainly not on the leaseholders, nor the freeholders - equally, it doesn't seem something the wider taxpayer should pick up, and councils are fked.
How about the builders who didn't build to spec, the cladding companies who sold material they knew was deficient and who knowingly presented false test reports to standards bodies, the fire protection companies who assumed that checking the material was someone else's job? The cladding thing I really cannot come to a conclusion on. It's an utter s
t show - and from what I can tell, there's no clear direction of blame. Certainly not on the leaseholders, nor the freeholders - equally, it doesn't seem something the wider taxpayer should pick up, and councils are fked. In other countries there is a levy on builders which is being used to fund replacement cladding which is dangerous, but Jenrick wouldn't like that would he, his housebuilder mates would have to pay. The same housebuilders are happy to make billions from taxpayer subsidised mortgages though. Funny old world.
Condi said:
Sway said:
Pretty incredible whataboutism and assumptions making an ass of you there...
The cladding thing I really cannot come to a conclusion on. It's an utter st show - and from what I can tell, there's no clear direction of blame. Certainly not on the leaseholders, nor the freeholders - equally, it doesn't seem something the wider taxpayer should pick up, and councils are fked.
How about the builders who didn't build to spec, the cladding companies who sold material they knew was deficient and who knowingly presented false test reports to standards bodies, the fire protection companies who assumed that checking the material was someone else's job? The cladding thing I really cannot come to a conclusion on. It's an utter s
t show - and from what I can tell, there's no clear direction of blame. Certainly not on the leaseholders, nor the freeholders - equally, it doesn't seem something the wider taxpayer should pick up, and councils are fked. In other countries there is a levy on builders which is being used to fund replacement cladding which is dangerous, but Jenrick wouldn't like that would he, his housebuilder mates would have to pay. The same housebuilders are happy to make billions from taxpayer subsidised mortgages though. Funny old world.
Note, the article was complaining that freeholders (who aren't any of those categories) couldn't pass on the costs - so should the bill have been passed and the burden placed on them? Or is it right the bill was rejected, so that instead the bill could be passed on in some indeterminate way to those three groups you identify?
Sway said:
My argument isn't "the mortgage BROKER is wrong". It's that his explanation doesn't stack up if the issue is one of 'interpretation' as he states (for those who don't meet affordability). It's not me needing to be a mortgage professional, it's about being able to understand what's written.
That also only applies to two of the four reasons (only looking at 50% of the cause would seem to be the definition of scraping the barrel) - and funnily enough there's no breakdown of the numbers in each cohort.
This is getting very tedious, the article literally says, and I quote "lenders were given special provisions to offer deals to people who did not fit their standard rules", which in English means they were allowed to relax their rules for existing customers to move them onto cheaper products, despite not fitting all the affordability criteria.That also only applies to two of the four reasons (only looking at 50% of the cause would seem to be the definition of scraping the barrel) - and funnily enough there's no breakdown of the numbers in each cohort.
I doubt many are in negative equity 13 years after these products were withdrawn, especially given the rise in house prices, and equally I am rather more confident in the bank's risk department judging the writing of MIFID than you. MIFID is an EU piece of legislation and I am not sure what, if any, opinion the FCA could give. The fact they have not clarified what is meant by the wording suggests the banks are probably correct.
Condi said:
Sway said:
My argument isn't "the mortgage BROKER is wrong". It's that his explanation doesn't stack up if the issue is one of 'interpretation' as he states (for those who don't meet affordability). It's not me needing to be a mortgage professional, it's about being able to understand what's written.
That also only applies to two of the four reasons (only looking at 50% of the cause would seem to be the definition of scraping the barrel) - and funnily enough there's no breakdown of the numbers in each cohort.
This is getting very tedious, the article literally says, and I quote "lenders were given special provisions to offer deals to people who did not fit their standard rules", which in English means they were allowed to relax their rules for existing customers to move them onto cheaper products, despite not fitting all the affordability criteria.That also only applies to two of the four reasons (only looking at 50% of the cause would seem to be the definition of scraping the barrel) - and funnily enough there's no breakdown of the numbers in each cohort.
I doubt many are in negative equity 13 years after these products were withdrawn, especially given the rise in house prices, and equally I am rather more confident in the bank's risk department judging the writing of MIFID than you. MIFID is an EU piece of legislation and I am not sure what, if any, opinion the FCA could give. The fact they have not clarified what is meant by the wording suggests the banks are probably correct.
Here's what else he had to say...
"And when the European mortgage credit directive came into force in 2016, lenders interpreted it as meaning they could not take on these customers.
But Hollingworth questions what the FCA can do to make lenders take on these borrowers."
So if its not an interpretation, it's a rule. One which blocks exactly what you're suggesting. Seems they had a two year window...
Sway said:
So which of those three broad brush categories should pay, and what percentage each?
Note, the article was complaining that freeholders (who aren't any of those categories) couldn't pass on the costs - so should the bill have been passed and the burden placed on them? Or is it right the bill was rejected, so that instead the bill could be passed on in some indeterminate way to those three groups you identify?
How about the government underwrite the work now and charge a levy to the industry(ies) over the next few years to pay it back.Note, the article was complaining that freeholders (who aren't any of those categories) couldn't pass on the costs - so should the bill have been passed and the burden placed on them? Or is it right the bill was rejected, so that instead the bill could be passed on in some indeterminate way to those three groups you identify?
That shouldn't be too complicated to arrange, if the will is there.
Which it evidently isn't.
Sway said:
Why the partial quote?
Here's what else he had to say...
"And when the European mortgage credit directive came into force in 2016, lenders interpreted it as meaning they could not take on these customers.
But Hollingworth questions what the FCA can do to make lenders take on these borrowers."
So if its not an interpretation, it's a rule. One which blocks exactly what you're suggesting. Seems they had a two year window...
This is like punching fog. Here's what else he had to say...
"And when the European mortgage credit directive came into force in 2016, lenders interpreted it as meaning they could not take on these customers.
But Hollingworth questions what the FCA can do to make lenders take on these borrowers."
So if its not an interpretation, it's a rule. One which blocks exactly what you're suggesting. Seems they had a two year window...
"Taking on these customers" means onboarding new customers, something they were not doing anyway thanks to the 2014 regulations. The 2016 regulations further clarified what was/was not allowed to happen. That is different to moving existing customers between products, which was allowed from 2014 onwards and (AFAIK) is still allowed for existing customers.
The proposal taken to Parliament was not to allow the customers to change lenders, but to restrict the IR the existing lender could charge their "trapped" customers, as they are currently paying up to 3 or 4% more interest than they would do had they been with any other lender than NR.
It feels like you're trying to argue black is white here.
Condi said:
Sway said:
Why the partial quote?
Here's what else he had to say...
"And when the European mortgage credit directive came into force in 2016, lenders interpreted it as meaning they could not take on these customers.
But Hollingworth questions what the FCA can do to make lenders take on these borrowers."
So if its not an interpretation, it's a rule. One which blocks exactly what you're suggesting. Seems they had a two year window...
This is like punching fog. Here's what else he had to say...
"And when the European mortgage credit directive came into force in 2016, lenders interpreted it as meaning they could not take on these customers.
But Hollingworth questions what the FCA can do to make lenders take on these borrowers."
So if its not an interpretation, it's a rule. One which blocks exactly what you're suggesting. Seems they had a two year window...
"Taking on these customers" means onboarding new customers, something they were not doing anyway thanks to the 2014 regulations. The 2016 regulations further clarified what was/was not allowed to happen. That is different to moving existing customers between products, which was allowed from 2014 onwards and (AFAIK) is still allowed for existing customers.
The proposal taken to Parliament was not to allow the customers to change lenders, but to restrict the IR the existing lender could charge their "trapped" customers, as they are currently paying up to 3 or 4% more interest than they would do had they been with any other lender than NR.
It feels like you're trying to argue black is white here.
If so, and as you assert they'd be on normal market rates for customers who aren't requiring such dispensation - then fair enough. Cap the interest.
Sway said:
So which of those three broad brush categories should pay, and what percentage each?
Note, the article was complaining that freeholders (who aren't any of those categories) couldn't pass on the costs - so should the bill have been passed and the burden placed on them? Or is it right the bill was rejected, so that instead the bill could be passed on in some indeterminate way to those three groups you identify?
Well how about the government help the people who've done nothing wrong and lost out through no fault of their own, instead of tax favours for billionaires, £100m contracts for their advisors, £58,000 to turn a flat into a badly decorated tarts pit and telling the victims of Grenfell they should have used common sense to avoid being burned to death?Note, the article was complaining that freeholders (who aren't any of those categories) couldn't pass on the costs - so should the bill have been passed and the burden placed on them? Or is it right the bill was rejected, so that instead the bill could be passed on in some indeterminate way to those three groups you identify?
It's not rocket f
king science, is it?
Condi said:
How about the builders who didn't build to spec, the cladding companies who sold material they knew was deficient and who knowingly presented false test reports to standards bodies, the fire protection companies who assumed that checking the material was someone else's job?
In other countries there is a levy on builders which is being used to fund replacement cladding which is dangerous, but Jenrick wouldn't like that would he, his housebuilder mates would have to pay. The same housebuilders are happy to make billions from taxpayer subsidised mortgages though. Funny old world.
Are those the same builders who built the flats in question?, if not seems very unfair.In other countries there is a levy on builders which is being used to fund replacement cladding which is dangerous, but Jenrick wouldn't like that would he, his housebuilder mates would have to pay. The same housebuilders are happy to make billions from taxpayer subsidised mortgages though. Funny old world.
The government should be pursuing the cladding companies and the builders who put the flats up using said cladding.
Sway said:
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: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
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.
If you have a mortgage, be it a fixed rate, discounted rate or whatever, you should be able to switch your product to a new offering - offered by the same lender - when the qualifying period has passed. By so doing you are able to ensure that your mortgage is for the most part keeping pace with other products.
The bank base is currently 0.1% - imagine paying a mortgage rate of 5% when others are getting rates of 1/1.5%? It makes a huge difference to monthly payments, so if you can’t get out you’re being unfairly penalised because of your financial circumstances.
768 said:
Sir James Dyson: The truth about my contact with Boris Johnson ... politically motivated mudslinging.
Saw it last night. A shrill piece all about him him him without considering the actual story; it's about the government and preferential access, not whether he or his company is naughty. The Telegraph has been trying suspiciously hard editorially this past week to say "nothing to see here". So much so I cancelled my subscription on Monday.
That pic looks line one of designer Lulu Lytle's home.
https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/inside-story-nu...
The URL says 'inside story', but it would.
https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/inside-story-nu...
The URL says 'inside story', but it would.
You've just ruined it for me. 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff