Government Mortage Protection

[Slim]

The new uk govt bill for deferring mortgage interest for two years in the case of redundancy is an interesting move, and a good way of keeping people in their houses perhaps.

 

What normally happens with such bills here, do we follow suit some time after?

[xbones]

You getting worried Slimbo?

[Slim]

You getting worried Slimbo?

 

Should I be?

[thesultanofsheight]

The new uk govt bill for deferring mortgage interest for two years in the case of redundancy is an interesting move, and a good way of keeping people in their houses perhaps.

 

What normally happens with such bills here, do we follow suit some time after?

 

I wouldn't trust that miserable lying sh*t Gordon Brown to step in if anything happens. It'll be another empty promise from the king of empty promises.

[Utah 01]

If Broon and Darling have as little sway over the building societies as they have over the banks then it would be best not to rely on them keeping you housed for the duration. Losing one's job is awful (I know) but being able to meet mortgage repayments (without the state rushing to assist) was always part and parcel of the deal, through good times and bad.

[Cambon]

The new uk govt bill for deferring mortgage interest for two years in the case of redundancy is an interesting move, and a good way of keeping people in their houses perhaps.

 

What normally happens with such bills here, do we follow suit some time after?

 

Not likely. My advice to you is to put some savings aside from your savings on the recent rate cuts. Worst case is you will need it. Best case is a big family holiday in a couple of years time when the pressure has eased. However, the most sensiible thing to do is to use the holiday money to reduce the outstanding amount of your mortgage.

 

After the housing crash and crippling interest rates in the early '90s, I left my mortgage repayments at a high level. I had got used to paying at that level so job's a goodun. Paid off mortgage 9 years early - result. Highly recommended!

[lfc84]

Tories

[Slim]

If Broon and Darling have as little sway over the building societies as they have over the banks then it would be best not to rely on them keeping you housed for the duration. Losing one's job is awful (I know) but being able to meet mortgage repayments (without the state rushing to assist) was always part and parcel of the deal, through good times and bad.

 

There's not really much state rushing in here, it's basically just halting the repossession and accruing the interest until you can start paying again.

 

 

Not likely. My advice to you is to put some savings aside from your savings on the recent rate cuts. Worst case is you will need it. Best case is a big family holiday in a couple of years time when the pressure has eased. However, the most sensiible thing to do is to use the holiday money to reduce the outstanding amount of your mortgage.

 

Why would you say it's not likely? Given it's rules that will apply to the same banks we use for mortgages in the main.

[Cambon]

Why would you say it's not likely? Given it's rules that will apply to the same banks we use for mortgages in the main.

 

The UK government is underwriting some of the banks and actually has controlling interest in two - for the moment. They can pretty much insist what they want in that jurisdiction. Over here is different. The government does not underwrite the banks.

[Slim]

The UK government is underwriting some of the banks and actually has controlling interest in two - for the moment. They can pretty much insist what they want in that jurisdiction. Over here is different. The government does not underwrite the banks.

 

Why would any bank object? With falling house prices they'll do better out of this than repossession. The scheme mitigates a lot of mortgage risk. The danger really is opposite, that the banks will start taking on more risky business because of this.

[Cambon]

Why would any bank object? With falling house prices they'll do better out of this than repossession. The scheme mitigates a lot of mortgage risk. The danger really is opposite, that the banks will start taking on more risky business because of this.

 

Because the bank will still owe the debt to whomever it borrowed from in order to lend it.

 

In other words it will have to pay the interest on your behalf. Not a good situation. Much better to foreclose and sell the asset and clear as much of the debt as possible.

[Slim]

Because the bank will still owe the debt to whomever it borrowed from in order to lend it.

 

In other words it will have to pay the interest on your behalf. Not a good situation. Much better to foreclose and sell the asset and clear as much of the debt as possible.

 

 

It's not better to foreclose if that results in a loss over the borrower getting back on their feet and can clear the debt.

 

If that were true, I'd be surprised that the major lenders plus the council of mortgage lenders are behind this scheme. Seems a big win for the banks, deferred interest at a higher rate guaranteed by the government plus the capitol payment as normal vs expensive repossessions procedure. I don't see why you're arguments against seem to be at odds with what the banks are saying, they're the experts after all.