Your web story, MI online 7 December, highlighting the fact that Halifax is calling on the government to commit to index link all the stamp duty thresholds to house price inflation in the future, caught my eye for a number of reasons. First, the shocking statistic that the combined revenue raised from inheritance tax and stamp duty on residential property reached a record £6.7 billion in the last financial year, although I suspected as much, seeing the figure in black and white still made me reel.
Second was the awareness that, having discussed the subject with Housing Minister Yvette Cooper recently, I was aware that the Chancellor’s 10th pre- Budget report was unlikely to address the situation.
Yvette Cooper said to me that as a result of threshold increases made by the Chancellor in the last two Budgets, less than half of first-time buyers pay stamp duty, and overall five out of six homebuyers pay stamp duty at 1 per cent or pay none at all.
That’s all very well, but 1 per cent of a vastly increased average house price is still a crippling amount for the average buyer.
All we got this pre-Budget was the promise that new carbon neutral homes would be exempt from stamp duty for a period.
The LibDems have described the current system as being “ridiculous” and “inequitable” . I have to agree with these words where they relate to the system of thresholds and politically motivated adjustment. It is about time the government acknowledged the plight of the average house buyer and stopped using stamp duty as a handy way to fund spiraling costs. The Halifax proposals seem the best solution – that is for everyone except a government with a thirst for easy cash.
Jonathan Naylor, managing director, Rooftop Mortgages
Dear Sir,
There has been much criticism of Paymentshield over their recent change in policy concerning the payment of commissions to brokers after retirement. Such criticism is completely justified however, from the Association of Mortgage Intermediaries (AMI) what has happened? Zilch, nothing, a definite silence on the subject!
So one has to ask the question: ‘what is AMI about if it is not to promote and protect the interests of its membership?’ Surely this is a classic case for a trade organisation to take up the cudgels on behalf of its members and perhaps use its muscle to negotiate terms with other GI providers who take a more ethical stance than Paymentshield.
I do not know how many members AMI has, I myself have been a member probably since it’s inception. I do get concerned at the direction it appears to be going. Why for example are bodies other than mortgage intermediaries allowed to take up membership and why does AMI not have its own mortgage club?
James Town, Mortgage Decisions
In response Rob Griffiths associate director at AMI, said:
“AMI is very disappointed in the attitude of some providers in abandoning the very people who have made them successful. We have not been silent on these challenges and we are certainly taking this matter very seriously and have helped a number of members who have contacted us. It is our sincere hope that these providers will reconsider their position, and AMI is seeking a meeting with the ABI to discuss changing the way these issues are handled in the future. In the meantime our members would be well advised to consider the contract they enter into with providers and check for these hidden man-traps that deprive them of their income.
“With regards to the fact that other bodies are allowed to join AMI, well this has always been the case. We offer Associate and Affiliate membership to those companies who wish to show their support for the intermediary sector and its trade body. This is not a new direction that AMI is travelling in but it is, and always has been, an acknowledgement that the whole of the mortgage industry must work together if it is to be a continued success. We welcome membership from those firms who support the intermediary sector and the work that AMI does. It should also be pointed out that Associate and Affiliate members have no voting rights or say in AMI policy, for example, they had no input or influence on the wording we published this year to allow intermediaries access to client information from lenders post-completion.
“AMI does not have its own mortgage club because we are a not-for-profit trade body not a commercial organisation. We exist to provide plain English information to help members’ businesses and lobby those who make the decisions that affect the mortgage intermediary sector.”
Dear Sir
In response to the story, MI online 6 December, Moneyfacts.co.uk has questioned whether there is a place for Higher Lending Charges (HLCs) in a buoyant property market. I would never advise one of my clients to pay a HLC for exactly the same reasons as detailed in the article. This just emphasises yet another need for first-time buyers to seek advice from a professional mortgage adviser rather than looking at the internet or even worse wondering into their local bank/building society. If the OFT is going to report MPPI to the Competition Commission as part of the overall PPI investigation then surely HLC should be next? Unless, of course, any lender who charges HLC’s can prove that they shop around for the cover (or allow the client the opportunity to do so) and provide the actual cost breakdown of any policy they buy (with the clients money)and fully explains the policy (and exclusions etc) to the client.
Name and Address supplied
Dear Sir
In response to the story, MI online 6 December, the Association of Mortgage Intermediaries (AMI) has called for Mortgage Payment Protection Insurance (MPPI) to be excluded from the proposed market investigation referral to the Competition Commission (CC). I believe the regulator would be better occupied looking at the practice of high-street banks and online loan providers such as Egg and Cahoot who make it sound that Lump Sum payment cover is a condition of the loan, these premiums are often approaching 50 per cent of the loan requested and that is before interest is added. Like most Mortgage Brokers I only sell MPPI where a need exists and then only on a monthly premium basis.
Jim Gleeson, via e-mail
Dear Sir
I think it’s barking mad to even consider 130,000 new homes per year. Where are you going to build them? Has it ever occurred to city dwellers that if you keep burying land under concrete that you are reducing the space to grow food? What happens when the Argentinians say “sorry Señor we need all our beef” and the New Zealanders say “sorry our population has grown – no more lamb or butter for you – we need it ourselves”. What good are all your buried acres going to be to you then? And don’t forget rising sea levels – even more land gone! Welcome to potential starvation!
John Thinkmoon, via e-mail
