Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Endinburgh Council
 
 
Monday, 2nd November 2009 Change Date Latest Issue

RBS gives six-month break to struggling homeowners

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 01 December 2008
HOMEOWNERS struggling with mortgage payments are to be given six months breathing space by Royal Bank of Scotland, it was revealed today.
The Edinburgh-based bank is to allow double the three months recommended by the Government before starting to push for repossession orders.

It comes just days after 58 per cent of the bank fell under state control and is being seen as part of a mo
re consumer-friendly approach.

The move follows Chancellor Alistair Darling's insistence that banks who have taken Government funds have to realise that the taxpayer must "get something in return".

The credit crunch has led to a sharp rise in borrowers falling behind on payments with an average of three homeowners a day in Edinburgh facing legal action from lenders for late payments.

Stephen Hester, who formally replaced Sir Fred Goodwin as chief executive at RBS just 11 days ago, said: "The Government has called on banks to wait at least three months before moving to repossess the house of a customer who cannot make mortgage payments. Today, RBS Group is announcing that we can be even more helpful.

"From December 1, our RBS and NatWest mortgage customers in need will be given a six month moratorium to right themselves before we begin repossession proceedings. "

He said the bank was "conscious that many people face anxiety" about repayments in the tough economic climate.

He added: "In our UK residential mortgage lending, and as a banker to small businesses, we are determined to serve customers well in the difficult times ahead and have commitments to Government that we intend to meet in letter and spirit."

It is expected other banks may follow suit as the Government calls for greater help from banks for borrowers and businesses.

MPs are also reportedly working on plans for statutory codes of practice in the banking industry, which could replace the current voluntary system.

Referring to the Government's investment in banks yesterday, Mr Darling said: "They have to realise that the taxpayer's going to get something in return."

Recent figures obtained by the Evening News revealed that 582 repossession orders were launched by lenders in Edinburgh courts in the first six months of the financial year.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 01 December 2008 9:59 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

ccc,

01/12/2008 13:06:14
If you can't afford your mortgage after 3 months you certainly wont be able to afford it after 6. That is of course unless this recession is all done and dusted by the middle of next year. Odds of that happening ? About 1 million to one.

Banks don't start reposession hearings until well after 6 months anyway.
Also can I ask JayDeeTee why people should be given any more help ?
If someone has a mortgage agreed for 25 years and they cant handle the bad times with the good then they shouldn't have signed up in the first place.

You now get mortgage interest subsitence from the taxpayer after 13 weeks of losing your job.
You also now have banks going easy (Officially) when it comes to reposession hearings.

What else do you want ? A direct debit from all of us without debt - and be done with it ? Maybe we can just sponsor a 'homeowner' like is done with a child in Africa….

The lack of individual responsibility taking in this country is staggering.
2

John Knox furr First Meenister,

High St, Embra 01/12/2008 13:16:56
Bad move by RBS. Are they so cash rich now that they can idly allow people to take repayment breaks for 6 months? They never allowed that before they were nationalised. Share price is doomed with practices like that.
3

Disgruntled Black cab customer,

01/12/2008 13:19:20
#2 youre a self centred idiot.

the whole recession is because of greedy bankers not because people wanted to own their own houses.

I also know of 2 people that reposessoion has begun for them and they are just 3 months behind not 6 as you say.

I assume you are comfy and financially secure.
4

alex paterson,

edinburgh 01/12/2008 13:32:54
How will that work if you took out a bank loan,will you get the same breathing space.
5

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

01/12/2008 13:50:07
Maybe what we need is some lenience for taxpayers who are behind with their taxes.
6

ccc,

01/12/2008 14:10:23
#4

How exactly am I being self centred here ? I am simply prepared to look after myself whilst half this nation expects to get bailed out for every mistake they make.

This whole mess is down to greedy bankers. That is totally true. However without greedy individuals buying houses they could not really afford this mess would have failed to happen.

You are basically backing up everything I say.

I could have bought a house in the past few years. I decided against it as house prices were crazy high and I couldn't afford it. I should not be paying for this mess. Those who bought and are now in trouble should.

Please explain what part of my argument is self centred ?

I am simply asking for FAIRNESS across the board.

Your problem with that....
7

UPR,

somewhere 01/12/2008 14:16:24
What about struggling tenants? Why should homeowners get help and not tenants?
8

ccc,

01/12/2008 14:20:47
#4
"the whole recession is because of greedy bankers not because people wanted to own their own houses."

Sorry I just had to repeat this again. If you really think the above then you have little knowledge of the cause of all this mess.

-Greedy bankers are responsible.
-Greedy politicians are responsible.
-Greedy/financially unaware individuals are responsible.
-Useless and impotent Financial watchdogs are responsible.

If you want to forget about the third group that is fine - up to you.

However it doesn't change reality. People wanting houses they could not afford is THE central point of this whole mess.

It was a bubble. It has now burst.

Your friends were part of this bubble.
I was not part of this bubble.

Your friends will end up paying.
I will end up paying.

Yet I am the 'self centred' one !!

You couldn't make it up.
9

Stray Hogg,

01/12/2008 14:24:14
#8 Because home owners will be loosing money....a lot of money in some cases.

What money are tenants losing? you're a bloody fool!!
10

ccc,

01/12/2008 14:29:24
#6 - Stop that or you will be punished by our great leader - Broon !!

#8 - Because you are not a worthy person in this country unless you are a 'hard working family and homeowner'. That is according to the current Government anyway.

There is help for those renting by the way. However if you have savings over 16k you will have to fend for yourself. So yet again those who have been sensible and saved up for a rainy day will get ZERO output from their taxes. Whilst those that bought houses they could not afford and covered their houses in flat screen TV's will have every bit of help avilable.

Nice and fair eh..
11

Stray Hogg,

01/12/2008 14:32:27
#11 Do you got to CC Blooms?
12

ccc,

01/12/2008 14:38:32
#10

"Because home owners will be loosing money...."

Any 'homeowner' who is in trouble with reposession will not actually 'own' their home. Hence the huge mortgage....

So most of the money they are 'losing' was never their's in the first place.

You starting to understand how this whole mess came about..
13

Stray Hogg,

01/12/2008 14:43:03
#13 Yes, some people have put down large deposits and if they lose their job, due to the recession, they might lose a lot of money.

I'm not talking about people who borrowed up to 6x their salaries ya f ud.
14

,

01/12/2008 14:47:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
15

ccc,

01/12/2008 15:22:34
#14

Many people saw this coming. The idea that nobody did is another great myth perpetuated by the Government and media.

And anyway I agree that it is not in the banks interests to reposess homes. That is why they generally wait well over 6 months to even begin these proceedings. However when they realise that the person has little to no chance of ever paying back ? Then is when they instigate proceedings. Nothing wrong with this. Perfectly fair.

#15

I don't understand what you are talking about ?

-Someone puts down a big deposit on a loan they take out for 25 years.
-They fail to put anything aside for a time in that QUARTER OF A CENTURY that they may have trouble paying the loan.
-They lose their job.
-They can't service their loan.
-Their property goes down in value.
-They (or their bank) sell their home and they lose their deposit.

Where exactly in that situation is there a problem ? Tuff cheese as far as I can see. Cest La Vie.

I put money in some shares last year. I lost a good few grand. Should I be compensated for this ? I don't think so.

There is no difference.

I take it you think those who have 'made' tens of thousands in the past few years through property should have to pay this back also?

You can't have it both ways. You take the risk. You accept all outcomes. You get on with it and stop whinging.

#16 - Totally agree. We have made our bed. We now have to lie in it. Not pleasant.
16

Stray Hogg,

01/12/2008 15:45:44
#17 What about CC Blooms?
17

UPR,

01/12/2008 17:12:17
#10. I fail to see how I am being foolish (never mind how I am a "bloody" fool, whatever that is.)

Your argument seems to be based on the premise that if someone loses money they should be compensated (or is there something special about housebuyers which has not been said explicitly?)

If that is correct then I lost money on my last car - it cost me £15k and is now only worth about £10k. Should the government compensate me? I decided to rent as I took the view 2 years ago that house prices were due a huge fall, based on information in the public domain such as loan to average earnings ratios etc. I also sold bank shares last year on the basis that I predicted that prices would fall. I have been proven correct on both these points but now I find people demanding compensation for not being financially savvy enough to stop them making stupid (hugely geared) investments in property which they could not afford.

It was simply a bad investment and unfortunate and unpleasant as it may be losses are possible on all investments, homes included. Maybe if we stopped seeing our homes as investments but rather as somewhere to live this problem wouldn't happen again. But as long as long term lets are actively discouraged by government (compare with France for instance) I doubt it.

My (apparently stupid) point was why should some bad investment bets be compensated by the government but not others. God forbid we ever get to the point where the government underwrites any investment risk as we will only see huge inflation (work it out)
18

keit011,

01/12/2008 19:22:39
mortgages are a big gamble 25 years pay a hell of a lot in interest hoping to god you keep your job and your partner keeps faithful to you its a hell of a lot to expect when you think of it .the bank must be odds on favorite to come out on top most times .
19

Julian.,

edinburgh 02/12/2008 00:43:17
CCC,

One thing you might be forgetting. Those people who face repossession have paid taxes to bail out RBS. Therefore, they really actually own part of it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should bail these people out. But by allowing them to go interest only, even for several years is hardly a bailout. The mortgage debt still stays on the bank's balance sheet as an asset and they still get the interest on the loan they have provided. It's the least they should do I would say.

Buy to let investors have been allowed to do it for years so what's the difference if homeowners are allowed to follow suit?
20

ccc,

02/12/2008 10:32:07
Julian.

No problem with what you say and banks trying to help as much as possible. However this only goes for cases where it looks like the person will be able to service their debt. Interest only for several years ? That is simply delaying the inevitable and will drag this whole mess out longer than necessary.

Your example of BTL is not the best - that model for lending money has been shown to be pretty dodgy to say the least !!

One major problem recently has been the allowing of interest only mortgages with no specified repayment vehicle !! That is insane - but it has been happening all over the shop.

If you move someone who is having difficulty paying to an interest only - what are the chances they will have a repayment vehicle in place ? Slim to none.

I know how banks deal with reposession cases. They leave proceedings as the very, very last resort. Banks don't want to reposess people's houses. Not worth the hassle - UNLESS they deem that the person will never be able to pay them back. Only in that situation does it makes sense to reposess and get back whatever they can.

That is what the banks have always done. That is what the banks are doing now. The only difference today is there are a far higher number of people out there who simply have no chance of ever paying back their mortgage.

Keeping those in their houses who are having short term problems ? I totally agree with. However this is already happening.
21

Julian.,

edinburgh 02/12/2008 23:18:24
CCC,

I agree with you to an extent. But as I say, we are all indirectly shareholders in RBS which makes it a different ballgame.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as you've got a bit equity in your property, what's the problem with going interest only. After all, charging people interest is how banks make money. And even if the homeowner dies before paying back any further equity, presumably the bank has a claim on the asset.

It's a win/win situation.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.