Performing loan but stuck with Pepper's 4.75%

Eureka101

Registered User
Messages
31
I took out my mortgage with a Bank ( NIB ) in 2007 and have ended up with a Vulture Fund ( Pepper.)
I have a performing mortgage and a favorable LTV of 70-75% yet Pepper have no facility or interest in reducing my rate from a scandalous 4.75%.
Pepper's standard response when asked about the possibility of reducing my rate is simply 'You'll need to fill out a MARP' form...

It is important to consider that for many people switching isn't an option as current financial situations may have completely changed since the mortgage was first taken out.
Its perfectly normal to buy the house then have kids which means that childcare now has to be factored into means testing and a possible reduction in one partners earnings to care for children to offset the childcare cost further. This is in addition to very tight CB rules on borrowing

Pepper and all other Vulture funds are somehow escaping the hard work being done by the Central Bank to improve the conditions of our dysfunctional market and to protect the consumer.

TRS support finishes next month also for many thousands of people who purchased during the boom. Our mortgages have become steadily more expensive since NIB & Danske sold out and we lost the opportunity to leverage our LTV. This is the type of scenario that adds to the dysfunctional scenario in our country, increases the chance of default and sucks disposal income from our country and gives to these Vulture Funds

The Central Bank and Government needs to get tough now and protect consumers like myself and many others.
 

Sunny

Frequent Poster
Messages
3,680
Was your loan always performing? If it was, it is an interesting case study and one worth brining to politicians and media attention. There is a lot that the Central Bank can do around their lending rules to help people switch mortgages without increasing systemic risk.
 

Sarenco

Frequent Poster
Messages
5,831
TRS support finishes next month
Not quite. MIR reduces to 25% of qualifying interest next year but it won't be completely gone until the end of the year.

Have you tried to switch? I would have thought that being able to show that you have serviced a mortgage for 12 years, particularly at such a high rate, would be viewed very favourably by another lender.

Also, the CBI mortgage rules don't apply to switchers.
 
Last edited:

gnf_ireland

Frequent Poster
Messages
1,404
I took out my mortgage with a Bank ( NIB ) in 2007 and have ended up with a Vulture Fund ( Pepper.)
I have a performing mortgage and a favorable LTV of 70-75% yet Pepper have no facility or interest in reducing my rate from a scandalous 4.75%.
Was your loan always performing? If it was, it is an interesting case study and one worth bringing to politicians and media attention. There is a lot that the Central Bank can do around their lending rules to help people switch mortgages without increasing systemic risk.
@Eureka101 If you have 12 years of solid repayments and a decent LTV, I would at least apply to the banks to see if they will offer you a mortgage, irrespective of the Income to Loan ratio. It is a switcher mortgage after all, and I think some bank would be able to do something, even if just to improve their switcher numbers for the year

But yes, this is the downside of being transferred to the likes of Pepper. If you had remainder with one of the mainstream banks you would be able to avail of a better rate at this point.

But I do think it would be a very interesting case study for the media, and one that is worth highlighting.

By any chance, are you in a by-election area?
 

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
39,131
Hi Eureka

I have suggested to the politicians that their bill to stop the sale of mortgages to vulture funds is not the right response.

My alternative was that whoever buys a mortgage must offer the same rates on offer by the lender who sold the mortgage.

This would help some people in your situation.

But it would not help you as your lender NIB is no longer in the market.

Another suggestion was that the rate could not be more than [30%] higher than the average rate.

Again, I doubt that this would help you. The average rate on non-tracker mortgages is probably around 4% , so the ceiling would be 5.2%.

This relative cap does not help much in a market where all the lenders are charging high rates.

The Central Bank and others argue that competition will bring down market rates. It won't help people who can't move lender.

Brendan
 

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
39,131
The guys in the Central Bank are so arrogant that they will not listen or change their minds, as to do so, would admit that they were wrong.

But there is a new Governor and you should write to him directly to bring his attention to the issue.

You will get a "We don't deal with individuals - go to the Ombudsman" response. But he will probably read it. The worst that can happen is that his staff read it and give him the standard Central Bank answer. But you have nothing to lose by doing so.

You should also send details of your case to Charlie Weston, Michael McGrath and Pearse Doherty who are the best on this issue.

Brendan
 

Sarenco

Frequent Poster
Messages
5,831
I have suggested to the politicians that their bill to stop the sale of mortgages toAnother suggestion was that the rate could not be more than [30%] higher than the average rate.

Again, I doubt that this would help you. The average rate on non-tracker mortgages is probably around 4% , so the ceiling would be 5.2%.
Hi Brendan

I don’t see any good reason to exclude trackers from the the calculation of the average rate charged on all outstanding homes loans.

A statutory cap set at 130% of the average rate charged on all outstanding home (PPR) loans in the preceding month would definitely help the OP.

As things stand, it would cap rates at around 3.25%.
 
Top