Re: Brown's budget bollox.

Lou Ravi wrote:

James Hammerton wrote:
Lou Ravi wrote:

[ ... ]

Why on earth should the lender pay a single penny of the interest they
did pay back to them?

which is the case, even of that exorbitant interest was only paid
for 36 months.

Because the rate was based on a longer period. That longer period was
shortened to 3 years and I can see no reason, moral or financial, to
charge an exorbitant rate. You are saying that the lenders should have
the tea and the biscuit. They get the house back, they make a fat profit
having charged interest on something that they now own. I can't see any
moral justfication for that, just another rip off by rip-off banks.

A 36 month loan was not what was agreed.
A 15/20/25 year loan was agreed and the borrower has broken that
agreement after 36 months (actually after fewer since there will
typically be 3 months of missed payments before repossion becomes an
option).
On what basis do you claim that when the borrower breaks that
agreement it should lead to the interest rate being revised to what
it would have been if they'd made a different agreement where by the
borrower took out a loan for only 36 months?

And why not? Why should people, effectively, pay interest worked out for
a 15/20/25 years period when the person paying that interest only
benefits from it for 3 years, be it by their own fault, *and* the
lenders end up with the property? Banks are robbers, always have been,
always will be and I can't see how anyone could justify their greed.

You seem to mislead yourself by using the erroneous term "repossession" - or even "repossion" - which is not appropriate in anything but the very rarest of circumstances (which can be disregarded)?

You do know, I take it, that the lenders are rarely the party who owned the property in the first place and that they even more rarely, therefore, end up with it "back"? And you do also know that they don't actually want to own the property at any stage and that *possession* proceedings are not their first (or second) choice?

And finally... are you *really* under the mistaken inmpression that anyone whose mortgage is determined before the end of the term (for whatever reason) has to pay all the interest that they would have paid over the full length of the term?

I can hardly believe it, but it is the only explanation for some of the weird things you are claimng.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Off topic? Off limits?
    ... Another reason to avoid Ryanair like the plague then. ... They make their staff pay for their uniforms and inflight ... company electricity to charge their mobiles. ...
    (uk.media.radio.archers)
  • Re: five year lock in
    ... They have to pay BT an activation fee. ... up front, there is no lock in (for that reason, anyway). ... charge it up front, they either roll it into the monthly fee forever, ...
    (uk.telecom.broadband)
  • Re: Off topic? Off limits?
    ... piece of hand luggage is free but the rest you pay for. ... Another reason to avoid Ryanair like the plague then. ... They make their staff pay for their uniforms and inflight ... company electricity to charge their mobiles. ...
    (uk.media.radio.archers)
  • Re: BT contract, broadband!
    ... I have to wait 12 months before I can pay less?! ... shorter contract available? ... There is no reason that you cannot pay for a new line with Tiscali - unles ... & yes, the £70 charge is correct, however, this is less than the charge ...
    (uk.telecom)
  • Re: five year lock in
    ... They have to pay BT an activation fee. ... up front, there is no lock in (for that reason, anyway). ... charge it up front, they either roll it into the monthly fee forever, ...
    (uk.telecom.broadband)