West Bromwich Building Society Tracker Margins Legal Action
Are you affected by the West Brom Tracker Rate Hike?
If your mortgage account number begins with the number 8 you are highly likely to be one of the unlucky 41% of the mortgage customers of the West Bromwich building Society with a West Bromwich Mortgage Company account affected by the 1.9% increase in your tracker margin rate. However, if you arranged your mortgage directly with West Bromwich Building Society (i.e. not via a broker) or before 2006 the chances are that your account number will begin with the number 9 and you are not affected – YET!!! West Brom will give no assurances that mortgages with account numbers beginning with the number 9 will not be affected at some point in the future.
OUR INTENDED CLASS ACTION LITIGATION OVERVIEW
The reasons we started this campaign are very simple:-
1) We believe the actions of West Brom are immoral
2) We believe the actions of West Brom are unlawful, i.e. they have no legal grounds to increase their tracker rate margins
3) We have no wish to subsidise other areas of the West Bromwich Building Society business model
4) We are fearful of other lenders following suit if West Brom are allowed to get away with this
Mark Smith (Barrister-At-Law) said …
“Representative actions, where one person starts a case representing many others, who all want the answer to a legal question from a court such as ‘is this contract enforceable against me?’ but are not seeking damages. All those who sign up to the action will get the benefit of the win, but they do not have to start their own cases, as they are ‘represented’ by the lead claimant.
The only people who will definitely benefit from success in the case are those who have signed up. There will be no free rides. Any others will have to fight their own corners individually, either alone or with legal help (which will inevitably cost significantly more than the group case).”
We will NOT settle on any basis.
We have a moral duty to do what is right for those who support the values upon which this campaign was started. Our promise to all who support these values is that we will not sell out on you at any price. We will continue to fight this injustice and we will fight any other lender who tries to follow suit.
Are you with us?
This discussion thread is now closed – we’re off to Court!
To link to the new discussion please CLICK HERE
Comments
Have Your Say
Every day, landlords who want to influence policy and share real-world experience add their voice here. Your perspective helps keep the debate balanced.
Not a member yet? Join In Seconds
Login with
Previous Article
Has Capita thrown in the towel on Tenancy Deposit Protection?Next Article
Win A FREE Ticket to the NALS Conference
Member Since January 2011 - Comments: 12193 - Articles: 1393
7:53 AM, 6th December 2013, About 12 years ago
Reply to the comment left by “All BankersAreBarstewards Smith” at “05/12/2013 – 21:35“:
With the benefit of hindsight West Brom bought our mortgage business and have since realised they can’t afford it and are trying to wriggle out of the deal.
They are currently buying business from savers and appear at the top of many of the best buy tables. The question is, can they be trusted not to try and wriggle out of those deals too when they realise they can’t afford to sustain them? Will they cite “adverse market conditions” as a reason to welch on those deals in due course too?
.
Member Since January 2011 - Comments: 12193 - Articles: 1393
8:25 AM, 6th December 2013, About 12 years ago
Reply to the comment left by “Paul Eastabrook” at “05/12/2013 – 23:55“:
Well spotted Paul, Mr Jones will now see that I’ve been checking out his profile too. At least we know have a picture of the man touting the poor widows and orphans propoganda to the MP’s who have written to his boss on our behalf – here is is >>> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-jones/14/49a/804
.
Member Since September 2013 - Comments: 333
9:06 AM, 6th December 2013, About 12 years ago
Reply to the comment left by “Mark Alexander” at “06/12/2013 – 07:33“:
@Mark A
No, you didn’t jump the gun.
If there is a glimmer of hope for some borrowers then that’s great news and demonstrates the hard work going on in the background.
I first came to your website because I have an BOI mortgage, which although was not part of the hike, I was concerned of any future impact on my mortgage.
I’m backing you for mainly solcialistic reasons as I would not like the hike imposed on me.
Like you, I am concerned about the wider impact in the lender-borrower community if other lenders follow suit.
Thanks for responding to the question.
Member Since January 2011 - Comments: 12193 - Articles: 1393
9:15 AM, 6th December 2013, About 12 years ago
Reply to the comment left by “Richard Kent ” at “06/12/2013 – 09:06“:
Cheers Richard, there is also something very interesting going on in the background for the BoI case. Justin is VERY excited about re-launching that campaign but we need to get our ducks in a row first. Watch this space!
.
Member Since July 2013 - Comments: 264
9:25 AM, 6th December 2013, About 12 years ago
If WB are back tracking on certain accounts, shows how good there external opinion was?
Member Since January 2011 - Comments: 12193 - Articles: 1393
9:34 AM, 6th December 2013, About 12 years ago
Reply to the comment left by “ian ” at “06/12/2013 – 09:25“:
I don’t think backtracking is necessarily the case in the way you’ve read into it, it’s more a case of errors in their initial assessments of “landlords with multiple properties”.
.
Comments: 22
10:14 AM, 6th December 2013, About 12 years ago
Looks like another one warming up to raise.
Received notification this morning from Future Mortgages Ltd that they are assigning my mortgage to Engage Credit Ltd who will ‘be responsible for setting interest rates and charges on your mortgage following the change of ownership.’
Small ones selling out to bully boys?
Member Since October 2013 - Comments: 134 - Articles: 1
10:41 AM, 6th December 2013, About 12 years ago
Reply to the comment left by “Mark Alexander” at “06/12/2013 – 09:34“:
As one of the “errors” alluded to, only this very week Lee Carroll has resolutely refused to correct my particular error despite having been aware of the true situation since 2007. That was why I was interested to read Andrew Jones officially committing to the definition of a “landlord of multiple properties”.
Member Since January 2011 - Comments: 12193 - Articles: 1393
10:44 AM, 6th December 2013, About 12 years ago
Reply to the comment left by “Paul Eastabrook” at “06/12/2013 – 10:41“:
I Paul, please link me to that “official admission” if possible. That will be very useful to Justin.
.
Member Since August 2013 - Comments: 428
10:58 AM, 6th December 2013, About 12 years ago
Mark, the definition is in para 2 of the letter to George Eustice M.P