Tozer G

Registered with
Tuesday 15th November 2016

Latest Comments

Total Number of Property118 Comments: 3

Tozer G

21:03 PM, 19th November 2016, About 5 years ago

Nationwide - another West Brom?

Reply to the comment left by "Glenn Ackroyd" at "19/11/2016 - 11:51":

Thanks. Good point. I'm guessing your point is under PD 26. I think my argument would be that the facts are not complex and are unique to me - it is simply a consideration of the documents in my particular case and that it is in the interests of justice for the case to be heard without costs consequences.

The alternative is to sit it out with the FOS which always seems like 'rough justice' to me as their interest in the specifics seems to be rather low.

Does anyone have any suggestion as to how I can obtain an impartial view as to whether my claim flies or not? I'm a solicitor (corporate) by profession but concerned that I should get a second opinion before the genie is released from the lamp.... Read More

Tozer G

14:39 PM, 15th November 2016, About 5 years ago

Nationwide - another West Brom?

Thanks again. To be honest, the risk of proceeding is not great as it would fall within the small claims court - hence even if I lost there would be no costs consequences.

My point in respect of the Further Advance is that I have not changed the contract at all. The change clause Nationwide is relying on states that the variation in rate can apply "to reflect a change in the way the property is used".

My argument is that:

a) Main mortgage - they did impose a charge. They cannot do so again.

b) Further advance - there was no "change in the way the property is used".... Read More

Tozer G

13:52 PM, 15th November 2016, About 5 years ago

Nationwide - another West Brom?


Thanks for that. Some clarifications:

Yes, it was residential. However, at the time of the original consent to let (1998), Portman levied a 1% loading. They subsequently (despite it constantly being let) applied another 1% charge in 2014 on the basis of a "change in use". My argument is that there was NO change of use and that they cannot charge twice for the same "change of use".

I also took out a further advance in 2009 (separate account). Nationwide (which had by then taken over Portman) knew the property was let. However, the further advance also became subject to a "change of use" charge of 1% in 2014 even though the use of the property hadn't changed throughout the life of the further advance and, in my opinion, could not had had its use changed!

Other than that, the principles in West Brom seem to apply to an extent at least in that it was a tracker mortgage and the lender unilaterally increased the rate for, apparently, no real reason.

KEG... Read More