West Bromwich Building Society Tracker Margins Legal Action

Reply to the comment left by “Shining Wit” at “06/12/2013 – 23:05“:

The distinction between consumer and commercial borrowing is an illusion so far as the WB case is concerned. The sole issue is how the contract is to be interpreted. Nothing turns on the way WB classify their borrowers.

Reply to the comment left by “Mark Alexander” at “07/12/2013 – 11:35“:

so if we’ve not yet been given leave to go home before the battle we can probably consider ourselves as not qualifying for the dispensation – and so front line troops?

Reply to the comment left by “Denise D” at “07/12/2013 – 11:48“:

Justin has identified around 20 paid up members which appear to share very similar circumstances to a borrower for whom the rate hike decision has already been reversed. There may be more examples and he also needs more information from those he has already identified as prospects for this dispensation before he can take action, hence his request for information, from those who may qualify, in his update yesterday.
.

Reply to the comment left by “Shining Wit” at “06/12/2013 – 23:05“:

I share your view. FCA regards us ALL as commercial borrowers anyway, irrespective of BTLs held, and is therefore offering us no more protection.

I am more worried about suddenly becoming excluded from the representative action because of WB deciding that it no longer applies to me, thus potentially putting me in an even more vulnerable position down the line when it considers whom it will target next.

Absolutely concur with the recent comments

Because the West Brom may choose not to increase my repayments (at this time) is nowhere near good enough

It needs to be established that they absolutely don’t have this right, in court – for all the reasons repeatedly mentioned throughout this website

I believe I may be one of those who fall into this new group who won’t have their payments increased – if this means I am ruled out of the representative action (Mark & Justin would need to determine this) I will absolutely continue to support this action however I can (financially, letter writing, or whatever it takes)

What the West Brom are attempting is clearly wrong – we are already along way down the line of stopping them legally – this has to continue until it’s rightful conclusion, for our own and every other tracker mortgage holder’s benefit

I just hope that West Brom’s residential mortgage account holders realise the worth of what we’re all saying, and join the fight, as their turn will surely come unless we stop WB dead in its tracks.

Reply to the comment left by “Robert Hayes” at “07/12/2013 – 16:01“:

Hi Robert

Does your mortgage account number start with an 8 or a 9?

Reply to the comment left by “Paul Eastabrook” at “07/12/2013 – 16:18“:

residential mortgages are regulated … so residential consumers have more legal protection then landlords with BTL products …. that is why WB have targeted us… they reckon we could have been easy pickings… how wrong they were – thanks to Mark et al !!

Reply to the comment left by “All BankersAreBarstewards Smith” at “07/12/2013 – 16:54“:

Indeed. Although with the lily-livered attitude demonstrated to date by the FCA, I wouldn’t fancy residential mortgage holders’ chances if WB decided to start eking up rates on residential mortgage trackers and SVRs based upon what it can get away with for its BTL customers.

Reply to the comment left by “Appalled Landlord” at “07/12/2013 – 16:21“:

It’s an 8 – through an intermediary

When I took out the WB mortgage I had one other BTL

But I did have a mortgage on my own home – so who knows?

Interestingly the WB replied to one of my complaint letters stating they believed I had “5 loans secured on properties” – news to me!

Obviously Nothing about any of the credit reference stuff in the SAR pack I received

More angry letters to the customer relations office on the way