Why are SVR holders subsidising cheap trackers?

S

Spear

Registered User
Messages
248
It's not fair to keep hitting the SVR customers. Is there no way trackers can be touched? Is there not a "special circumstances" clause with trackers which means banks could share the burden between the SVR and tracker customers?
 
Why trackers should be hit as well? If trackers contract was to be breached why should we not reduce rate of Fixed Rate holders?
 
Spear said:
It's not fair to keep hitting the SVR customers. Is there no way trackers can be touched? Is there not a "special circumstances" clause with trackers which means banks could share the burden between the SVR and tracker customers?
Click to expand...

Why should I, as a tracker holder, be forced to pay any more than I am contracted to? I can sympathise with SVR holders, who are getting fleeced, but I should not be penalised for getting myself the best deal I could.
 
paddyw said:
why should i, as a tracker holder, be forced to pay any more than i am contracted to? I can sympathise with svr holders, who are getting fleeced, but i should not be penalised for getting myself the best deal i could.
Click to expand...
+1
 
u can not touch tracker mortgage holders becasue SVR holders are being fleeced due to the loss making the banks are making.

its called right time , right place , right option and good for them....in fairness AIB SVR is still the lowest in marketplace...only reason why it was 3% in first place was pressure from govt.

althou there is only a point everyone can go to , and i feel we are getting closer and closer to that point and people we just give up or lose the will to care, can banks repossess 000's of homes, i think not.
 
PaddyW said:
Why should I, as a tracker holder, be forced to pay any more than I am contracted to? I can sympathise with SVR holders, who are getting fleeced, but I should not be penalised for getting myself the best deal I could.
Click to expand...

AIB has gone totally bust, so any commitments it had to bond holders (secured/ non-secured), creditors, shareholders, etc. are now being managed effectively on a political basis. Any other normal private company would have been folded up at this stage and contracts torn up.

None of this is fair, but SVR holders are getting hammered at the moment and the politicians are very quiet!
 
Dinarius said:
I'm SVR with AIB. I presume there's no point in looking elsewhere, is there?

Thanks.

D.
Click to expand...

No. You won't get a much better rate than that anywhere. You'll incur a cost of switching (solicitor's fees) and spend a lot of time with appointments and forms etc ... and then you'll end up with another lender who could increase their SVR by .75% the day after you sign up.

It's not worth it at the moment. Maybe if AIB went over 5% you should start looking around but the cost and the risks will be the same.
 
Spear said:
It's not fair to keep hitting the SVR customers. Is there no way trackers can be touched? Is there not a "special circumstances" clause with trackers which means banks could share the burden between the SVR and tracker customers?
Click to expand...

In the UK most Tracker mortgages had a "collar" on them ie if interest rates fell below 2.5% then they stopped tracking at that point.

Irish mortgages had no such clause,indeed they are pretty much bullet proof in terms of contract.

The only chink is that a lot of these mortgages were given on a LTV basis as you can gather given the crash these LTVs are in the toilet,no lender that I am aware of has attempted to remove the Tracker because of this though.

SVR customers are now carrying the Banks mortgage book and they will be made to cover the losses incurred by their bullet proof,Tracker mortgage holding cousins,be in no doubt about that.
 
Knuttell said:
The only chink is that a lot of these mortgages were given on a LTV basis as you can gather given the crash these LTVs are in the toilet,no lender that I am aware of has attempted to remove the Tracker because of this though.

SVR customers are now carrying the Banks mortgage book and they will be made to cover the losses incurred by their bullet proof,Tracker mortgage holding cousins,be in no doubt about that.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying, Knuttell.

So, the point is that there is a method by which banks can remove trackers. If they did, it would mean they wouldn't have to keep hitting SVR holders with a 0.5% increase every few months.

What I don't understand is why they don't invoke that LTV clause? Do I need to set up a separate thread on that point? I'm not really sure it's been discussed to death yet. Might be worth exploring....
 
Spear said:
What I don't understand is why they don't invoke that LTV clause?
Click to expand...

Not even sure if its a clause within the T&Cs of many mortgages,you can be assured that all and any of these avenues have been explored by the banks and if they felt they could have they would have.

Not an expert on this subject by any means though.
 
From what I understand the LTV clause was only an 'opening' clause as such, a value applicable at the start of the mortgage in order to get the more advantageous rate. It does not track for the lifetime of the product, so it's not a get out clause.

It's really sad that people, although squeezed I understand, start looking for other people to feel pain. Our tracker is one of the things keeping us on track (no pun intended), thank god.
 
micheller said:
It's really sad that people, although squeezed I understand, start looking for other people to feel pain. Our tracker is one of the things keeping us on track (no pun intended), thank god.
Click to expand...

I had some RIP mortgages on SVR,I saw the advantage of Trackers and either changed lender or got the then current lender to change us from SVR to a very good tracker rate.

Moved house recently so on a SVR for our PPR and am paying much more than others on a tracker,nowt I can do about it but certainly do not begrudge those on tracker rates,good luck to them.

Not trying to be smart but that option was also available to anyone on an old style variable up until 2008,if they didn't bother looking for value or the best rate available on the biggest financial loan they had...well sorry folks ye only have yourselves to blame.
 
As a tracker mortgage holder I agree with the sentiments of many posters above.

I agreed a contract that I believe is irrevocable with my mortgage provider - unless I break or they break the terms.

If they break, my contract with them terminates and I owe them nothing.

I have a tracker. I have kept my side of the bargain. They insisted that I pay a specified amount for house insurance. I pay that, regardless of the fact that my house value might now be less than the amount they requested. But, I continue with my contract as specified and agreed and which is documented.

I' m sorry that some people feel hard done by and they might might direct their ire at tracker mortgage holders.

But, I have a contract and I am sticking to it and I am prepared to challenge any attempt to change it unilaterally.


Marion
 
I don't and never had a tracker, was I stupid, maybe, it is a gamble what way rates go, those on trackers could have lost, if say I fixed for 3% over 5 years and the ECB went to 10%, then the shoe would be on the other foot. I certainly don't begrudge those who do have trackers. It could easily have been the other way around.

When a person choses a variable rate they do so knowing that rates can go up as well as down. This thread is riduculous. Anger is completely misplaced.
 
I totally agree it has nothing to do wit trackers . If you have one fair play. I heard on the news this morning that the ECB are meeting today and the rate will remain the same but there will be a definite rate cut of 0.25% by the end of the year .
Will the banks follow suit?
 
reddanmm said:
I totally agree it has nothing to do wit trackers . If you have one fair play. I heard on the news this morning that the ECB are meeting today and the rate will remain the same but there will be a definite rate cut of 0.25% by the end of the year .
Will the banks follow suit?
Click to expand...

Very doubtful. I think you can forget about rate cuts on SVRs for the foreseeable future. Banks are clawing their way towards a more profitable scenario, they are not going to hand it back. There will be no meaningful correlation between ECB and SVR.
 
Dinarius said:
I'm SVR with AIB. I presume there's no point in looking elsewhere, is there?

Thanks.

D.
Click to expand...

Not really as it's probably still one of the lowest rate out there even though they all seem to be coming in line with each other now. At one stage the gap between AIB and PSTB was staggering.
 
Marion said:
As a tracker mortgage holder I agree with the sentiments of many posters above.

I agreed a contract that I believe is irrevocable with my mortgage provider - unless I break or they break the terms.

If they break, my contract with them terminates and I owe them nothing.

I have a tracker. I have kept my side of the bargain. They insisted that I pay a specified amount for house insurance. I pay that, regardless of the fact that my house value might now be less than the amount they requested. But, I continue with my contract as specified and agreed and which is documented.

I' m sorry that some people feel hard done by and they might might direct their ire at tracker mortgage holders.

But, I have a contract and I am sticking to it and I am prepared to challenge any attempt to change it unilaterally.


Marion
Click to expand...

I don't understand do you have to pay the same rate each year for House insurance for the whole period of your Mortgage. You are not allowed shop around each year for the best deal once the value of your house is covered- is that allowed?
 
Hi lucky charm.

I could have phrased it better.

My bank insisted that I must take out insurance for a specific house value. Yes I can shop around but I must ensure that I cover my property for the amount stated in my contract, Even if that figure is greater than the replacement value.

I don't want to break my contract with them.

Marion
 
I cannot see how you can be forced to insure at a set price. You insure for the current replacement value not the value of the house. The replacement value goes up and down depending on the state of the building industry. It has nothing to do with the price you might get for the house. It could be more or less
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top