Does this NE trade up sound feasible?

Hi Brendan, there is no question marks over our salaries, ability to repay, savings to cover deposit plus legal and estate agent fees etc, in fact the bank said it was "a perfect application but they just have no set product yet for moving NE.". We would qualify for approx €430k based on the last nets carried out inc stress testing. Add to that because there is no actual product in place, therefore no set policies yet they cannot allow us increase our existing exposure to purchase a more expensive house.
I do not want to overpay the mortgage in order to reduce the NE as we are getting a higher deposit rate than our tracker is. Plus if the banks are only allowing you borrow to your existing exposure it would put us in a worse position to reduce our mortgage balance quicker.
Regarding selling our house first, banks will not allow you sell your house and leave the NE unsecured. The best information we can get from the estate agent is that he has 3-4 people ready to purchase in this estate who have been outbid on other houses. Presently it seems like a good estate to be selling in as there appears to be a steady demand for these houses.
I just gave D24 and D4 as examples in response to so-crates post to me regarding areas.
 
Last edited:
Brendan, I find youre last email condescending. Working Mam already is very clear as to her capacity to pay, the costs etc associated with moving.She seems to be concerned with why the banks are not prepared to allow her to sell and buy in such a way that the net extra cost to them is nil.And I agree with her.The bank itself has said it is a perfect application but they dont have any products available.So the issue is with the banks who are basically holding up families social mobility even though it has no monetary impact on them.I find it a tragedy. And in this case where the 'application' is perfect and where there is double the proposed repayment in their actual monetary capacity, it is nonsensical.
 
I think it is a terrible situation that somebody who is willing to stand by their debts and responsibilites, and just wants to move on in life at the same time is not allowed to do so. There are enough people trying to avoid their responsibilites so fair play to you working man for what you are trying to achieve :)
 
blueskies said:
Working Mam already is very clear as to her capacity to pay, the costs etc associated with moving..
Click to expand...

Hi blueskies

We have 60,000 families in arrears over 90 days who were happy with their capacity to repay their loans. What is worse, the banks were happy with their capacity to repay their loans.

We probably have about 60,000 more who are in arrears of less than 90 days or who have rescheduled.

Working Mam seems intent to buy another house while retaining her own house with a view to selling it. This is based on "the estate agent ...has 3-4 people ready to purchase in this estate "

Working Mam has serious negative equity reduced somewhat by some savings. She has a valuable tracker mortgages. She should not be increasing her risk by trading up.

Brendan, I find youre last email condescending.
Click to expand...
The purpose of Askaboutmoney is to give people independent information and advice. Even if they don't like what they hear. If you want to classify that as "condescending", fine. I have asked Working Mam to put up all her information so that we can help her further, but she has not done so yet.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Hi blueskies

We have 60,000 families in arrears over 90 days who were happy with their capacity to repay their loans. What is worse, the banks were happy with their capacity to repay their loans.

We probably have about 60,000 more who are in arrears of less than 90 days or who have rescheduled.
Does this mean banks should stop lending to everyone, with this statement then you are painting every potential borrower as a risk the bank should not take
Working Mam seems intent to buy another house while retaining her own house with a view to selling it. This is based on "the estate agent ...has 3-4 people ready to purchase in this estate "
Yes, I'm looking to move house so I can raise my children in a decent area, I am not looking to retain my house, I am looking to get rid of it as quickly as possible. The usual procedure for moving house is sale agree your own before bidding on another, no??

Working Mam has serious negative equity reduced somewhat by some savings. She has a valuable tracker mortgages. She should not be increasing her risk by trading up.
My children's future and our quality of life is more important to me than saving a few euros on a tracker rate.

The purpose of Askaboutmoney is to give people independent information and advice. Even if they don't like what they hear. If you want to classify that as "condescending", fine. I have asked Working Mam to put up all her information so that we can help her further, but she has not done so yet.
Click to expand...
I have not given figures as I have stated before, qualification is not the issue - a suitable product is.
 
I am pointing out that a borrower who is in deep negative equity is a risk. This is accepted by most people.

The banks would not give a first time buyer a loan of 130% of the value of the house.

You are at serious risk even if you can't see this. That does not mean that you will default, it just means that you are at serious risk and you seem hell bent on increasing that risk.

Brendan
 
Brendan, you don't seem to want to take my point that the NE remains the same regardless if it is on house x or house y. If I walked in as a ftb I would qualify for the amount needed to purchase the new house. My ltv is already through the roof on my existing property because of the NE, it would in fact reduce if I moved.
Yes I am hellbent on moving as I have stated before, it is for a better quality of life for my children. This is about getting them into school in that area as if they go to school where we are currently living I would have to give up work as I could not get them to school and get across the city in time for work. Their childminder is in the area we want to move to, plus family.
 
Brendan, I came across a post you started on 28/03/12 regarding UB allowing people trade up with a tracker. You were very positive about this wonderful idea that you might have NE but guess what you can now keep your tracker and borrow more!! at a SVR. Why is the prospect of anyone else getting this a great idea but yet you continually tell me I'm "hellbent" on doing this and wrong for wanting to borrow more.
Make up your mind, its either risky or it's not.
Apologies I cannot post the link as I'm on my mobile.
 
Hi Mam

Here is the link

Ulster Bank is allowing tracker mortgages to be transferred to a new house

I think it is a great product. It will be brililant for people who want to trade up who are not in negative equity and who will not be in negative equity after the trade up.

I think it's a great product for people in negative equity who want to trade down. They will keep their tracker.

If you are in negative equity and you want to move, it's a great product in that you keep your tracker. It's certainly better than trading up from a cheap tracker to a very expensive SVR mortgage with ptsb.


I have no doubt that most people applying for negative equity mortgages will be refused on affordability grounds.

I would guess that there be two big users of this new product


  1. People with a cheap tracker and plenty of equity in their home who want to trade up and will still have equity
  2. People who are in negative equity who want to move house but without significantly increasing their borrowings.
Click to expand...
 
why should negative equity property owners be equated with mortgage arrears. That is almost insulting. What determines the persons ability to pay is his salary level and salary security.Or is it implied that if you are in negative equity you are less inclined to pay which is insulting too. Two doctors in negative equity will be of very low risk of default so to class all negative equity people together is incorrect.Every case needs to be considered on its individual merits and for a bank to come out and say that it has no products available for negative equity owners is a complete cop out and a denial of the economic situation that we now face. Indeed , they fueled the boom and now they fuel the bust and still remain as short termist and reactive as ever
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top