* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download 25 KB - National Homelessness Advice Service
Survey
Document related concepts
Syndicated loan wikipedia , lookup
Peer-to-peer lending wikipedia , lookup
Debtors Anonymous wikipedia , lookup
Debt collection wikipedia , lookup
Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac wikipedia , lookup
Moral hazard wikipedia , lookup
Financialization wikipedia , lookup
Government debt wikipedia , lookup
Foreclosure wikipedia , lookup
Security interest wikipedia , lookup
Adjustable-rate mortgage wikipedia , lookup
Continuous-repayment mortgage wikipedia , lookup
Public finance wikipedia , lookup
United States housing bubble wikipedia , lookup
Yield spread premium wikipedia , lookup
Mortgage broker wikipedia , lookup
Mortgage loan wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
IMA – Summer Edition Quarterly account Article from Shelter/National Homelessness Advice Service Preventing Mortgage Repossessions Introduction From 2005 the number of repossessions for homeowners began to increase and reached a peak in 2009 when 48,900 properties were repossessed. Such repossession activity raised concerns that we were facing a similar peak to 1991, when 75,500 properties were repossessed, leaving large numbers of households in negative equity and a legacy of debts to repay over the decade to follow. Since 2009 there has been considerable activity undertaken, to ensure that the number of households repossessed could be minimised, to avoid a crisis similar to the 1990s. In 2009 the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) took the lead, bringing together a number of stakeholders, to develop a comprehensive strategy to prevent homeowner repossession – stakeholders included the lending industry, Homes and Communities Agency, debt advice sector, the treasury and local authorities. As a result a package of measures were introduced from 2009. The package of measures included: Mortgage Rescue Scheme (MRS) – a £400m government investment for vulnerable households (who if they approached their local authority for homelessness assistance would be considered in priority need). The Mortgage Rescue Scheme provided two options. Firstly an Equity Loan, effectively buying out second and subsequent high interest secured loans or charges and replacing them with an affordable low interest equity loan provided by a Registered Provider. Secondly, Mortgage to Rent (MtR) – allowing a registered provider to purchase the property and rent it back to the household. MRS operated successfully until its closure for new applicants in April 2014 and at the time of writing 5,403 households have completed the process. Mortgage Rescue was closely linked with campaigns and communications, encouraging homeowners to seek advice. During the life of the scheme circa 60,400 households sought advice from their local authority, the majority finding alternative solutions to remain in their home Homeowners Mortgage Support (HMS) - launched in April 2009, HMS sought to help homeowners, who had suffered a loss of income, which meant they were temporarily unable to pay the contractual monthly interest payments on their mortgage. HMS allowed the homeowner to postpone up to 70% of their monthly mortgage interest payments for up to two years. This was not a ‘payment holiday’; the deferred payments were rolled up and added to the principal value of the loan, to be paid back after the homeowner left the scheme, according to a schedule agreed between the homeowner and the lender. Interest was charged on any amounts deferred. Lenders offering HMS had the backing of a Government financial guarantee, which protected the lender should the customer ultimately default on the mortgage. If, during or after exiting the scheme the homeowner was unable to keep up with their mortgage payments, the lender could still repossess and sell the property. If there was a shortfall between the proceeds from the sale and the amount of money owed to the lender, the Government would pay the lender up to 80% of the interest deferred while on the scheme. The scheme was complex and provided limited advantages to the homeowner and as result low numbers (circa 50) entered the scheme, until it closed in 2011. However to access HMS, it was a requirement the household should receive independent debt advice and the majority of households benefited from the scheme this way. Support for Mortgage Interest (SMI) - in 2009 the government made a ‘temporary’ adjustment to the regulations, which increased the capital value of any eligible loan to £200k, improved eligibility for older households, reduced the waiting period from 39 weeks to 13 weeks for payments and adjusted the interest rate paid. The ‘temporary’ rules will remain in place until March 2016. Wider packages of support to prevent homelessness for households included specific targeted promotional materials such as the NHAS ‘Are you worried about your mortgage’ leaflet, funding for access to Court Desk advice in every county court, changes to civil procedure rules to ensure lenders formally notified the local authority once a court date was obtained, the introduction of the Mortgages Pre Action Protocol, access to debt advice via targeted funding to the independent advice sector, Preventing Repossession Funding provided directly to local authorities, encouraging lender forbearance options and enhanced the Homelessness Code of Guidance ( to ensure local authorities did not automatically find households intentionally homeless if they had been repossessed, unless they had deliberately done something or failed to do something which resulted in repossession). Since 2008 lenders have actively developed a range of lender forbearance options, to assist households who have temporary difficulties paying their mortgage and have been encouraged to use repossession as the last resort. However, given that 35,000 households were repossessed by their lender in 2013 and large numbers have voluntarily given up their homes, it can be argued that forbearance cannot always prevent the loss of the home. During the planned closure of Mortgage Rescue Scheme Two, we have been working with a number of stakeholders involved in the scheme, to understand the key benefits of a national government backed strategy to prevent homelessness and to understand how stakeholders plan to support homeowners in difficulty in the future. Stakeholders have fed back the following information to us. Joint working across stakeholders has been key, to meet common objectives around homelessness prevention. Joint working has allowed stakeholders to develop clear targeting and communications strategies, using a wide range of tools from leafleting, newspaper articles, home visits, co-location of services, local advice access points, national media communications, and use of partners to promote options available to homeowners. Joint working has supported problem solving and innovative approaches to advising and assisting households. Many local authorities adopted innovative ways of using CPR 55.10, to target households at risk and were able to offer help at the start of the possession process. Enabling ‘direct’ and proactive referrals, ensured that households were less likely to ‘fall through the net’ during the advice and housing options process. Both locally and nationally, direct referrals have provided clarity of expectation for service delivery from both a household and stakeholder perspective. Direct referral routes have defined who will do what, within agreed timelines, managing the advice process more effectively to achieve positive outcomes for the household. Joint working has facilitated and benefited from training and support, to develop good quality advice and housing options services. Better understanding of the importance of debt advice, has improved the delivery of consistent and good quality financial statements, which are understood by all stakeholders. A comprehensive map of independent debt advice has been developed. By understanding the range of advice available, lenders and local authorities have been able to guide households to appropriate advice and support and steer them away from fee charging companies, or those who take advantage of vulnerable households, by seeking to take their property away from them for a profit. While it was accepted that MRS was not a cheap prevention option, for many authorities the scheme saved money, especially in cases where a property had previously received public investment for disabled adaptations or where the cost of rehousing the household, or placing them in temporary accommodation, would have been considerable to the authority and the household. During the delivery of MRS, we learnt that many homeowners lived in poor quality accommodation, due to their inability to invest in repairs or essential maintenance. Such properties were brought up to decent homes standard and so achieved a general improvement in stock and living conditions in the locality. A national strategy and scheme, such as MRS, was not without its challenges. Not every local authority adopted a proactive approach to preventing homelessness or were able to take advantage of the MRS offer. In areas of high property values, the cost of prevention could be higher and MRS not viable. Not every area achieved full MRS coverage via their registered provider and gaps in provision emerged. Preventing Repossessions Funding specifically for helping homeowners, while allocated to every local authority, was not ring-fenced and some authorities were unable to protect this funding internally, to achieve prevention outcomes. Second charge or ‘subprime lenders’ have not always adopted proactive, positive approaches to forbearance and in some cases have still pursued possession for relatively small amounts of debt. They have also not fully engaged with MRS and in some cases sought to block MRS completions. Although funding for Court Desk access has continued, the closure of a number local courts and a reduction in court opening hours, has exacerbated the ability of a household to attend a court hearing and access advice on the day or to make an emergency application to prevent a warrant from being executed. For many households, the cost and time required to attend a court hearing are prohibitive and not all court desks are easily accessible or well sign posted. There continues to be a worrying trend in homeowners not attending possession hearings, in some cases believing that no help will be available and that possession is inevitable. Looking at what may happen in the next few years, the Council of Mortgage Lenders believe the number of repossessions may start to increase from 2014. There are a significant numbers of households have already been in long term forbearance e.g. 12 months or more and there is an expectation by the regulator (the Financial Conduct Authority) that the lender should not allow households to accrue unsustainable arrears and household debt. As property values increase in a number of areas (as a result of current government initiatives to encourage house purchasing and a very healthy buy to let lending market), it may be advantageous for lenders to repossess, to reduce bad debts and impaired loan books. By 2020 it is predicted there are a number of households will come to the end of their interest only mortgage, many with no vehicle to repay the capital sum. Lenders are already targeting such households, coming within 3 years of the end of their interest only term, to discover how the household plans to repay the capital sum. A number of lenders are also looking at suitable alternative options for such households for example a form of Assisted Voluntary Sale or for older households ‘lifetime interest only mortgages’ to be paid off on disposal of the property. Lenders are examining their loan books, to determine household vulnerability to any increase in interest charges in the coming years, many are concerned that even a small increase of 0.5% could tip many households into a position where their housing costs are no longer sustainable (taking into account low wage inflation and increased households costs such as fuel, transport and pension contributions). The Financial Conduct Authority has completed its thematic review of mortgage arrears & lender behaviour (published spring 2014). The review highlights the importance of lenders to treat all households in mortgage difficulty, or at risk of arrears, fairly and appropriately and to move away from a process driven or ‘one size fits all’ response to arrears. The review also highlights the importance of lenders supporting household’s access to timely independent debt advice, especially for ‘sensitive’ or vulnerable households. To achieve this, lenders will need to ensure their frontline staff are adequately trained and supported to spot the ‘triggers’ to refer a sensitive household to access support. With the demise of MRS from April 2014, local authorities are currently reviewing how they will continue to support homeowners in difficulty. The following is a summary of the types of activities authorities would like to offer: Continuing to enable access to good quality debt advice, either via ‘in house’ provision or by working closely with independent advice providers, to both target and provide an effective prevention service to households in arrears. Advice activity will run alongside continued and refreshed activity to target households via the CPR 55.10 notifications, alongside local publicity to promote advice services & regular engagement with Court User groups. Where there is investment via Advice Service Transition Funding to reconfigure services, the authority will need to ensure these services still link to access to advice and prevention of homelessness. Some authorities are running financial capability training directly to the public, in conjunction with their local CABx or other advice providers. Both local authorities and lenders would like to see the continuation of designated points of contact, to enable them to effectively discuss specific cases, where the household is at risk of repossession and needs support or advice. Where authorities still have access to Preventing Repossession Funding, a number are considering ‘Breathing Space’ interventions, allowing them to provide interest free short term loans secured on the property, to allow the household an opportunity to recover their financial circumstances. In some areas authorities are using local credit union facilities, to administer the loan to achieve efficiencies and also to encourage households to start saving in the longer term. One authority has leased accommodation from older homeowners in mortgage debt, taking on the payment of the mortgage as part of the lease costs, using this accommodation for temporary accommodation for families (often accommodation owned by older people is too large for their needs) and providing the older person with a lifetime tenancy in a sheltered scheme. Older people in mortgage debt may also benefit from independent advice on equity release, as a way of reducing mortgage debt and making homeownership sustainable again. Some authorities are actively looking at MRS replacement offers at a local level. Such schemes may include targeting ex Right to Buy households in mortgage debt, to take the property back into public ownership (in some cases using the local authority ability to borrow money to purchase the property). Authorities may also wish to target households which have had disabled facilities grants or larger households who would be expensive to accommodate via a homelessness duty. A small number of authorities are in discussion with their local registered provider to consider a Shared Ownership offer for certain households in mortgage debt. Such an offer would require investment of local authority and registered provider funds. From the work we have recently undertaken with local authorities, lenders, and advice providers, it is encouraging to note that while current trends in repossessions are downwards, stakeholders are not complacent. Many households remain vulnerable to changes in circumstances, high household debt, interest rate and inflation increases and will need targeted housing options and other advice interventions to prevent homelessness. Carolyn Howell National Homelessness Advice Service Coordinator Shelter May 2014