West Bromwich Building Society Tracker Margins Legal Action

Reply to the comment left by "Will Brown" at "04/10/2013 - 13:21":

I can't believe that we're all still talking about T&Cs that we did or didn't receive. As I have said previously, NONE of us signed up to these, but the Mortgage Offer itself. THEREFORE ANY additions or other paperwork, whether printed before or after thee time the Mortgage Offer was signed, are IRRELEVANT! Any Tom, Dick or Harry could add clause AFTER the event, or have them hidden away somewhere; but this misses the point. We did NOT sign up to any terms that were not printed on the paperwork we signed. To me this is quite a basic error on the lender's part, and OURS too if this is what we are worried about. Don't be. We didn't SIGN up these extra conditions; and 'proving' a negative is impossible anyway: not having received them. As I say, it's irrelevant anyway. We tread a VERY slippery slope if T&Cs can be added at will. What's the point of signing up to anything, if this is the case, as they can then change their minds later. It's totally erroneous in my view.

I do think it is worth focusing on the role of the lawyers in all of this and perhaps Justin making a general complaint/attempt to involve the Law Society. There is no doubt that there was less of this sort of thing when mortgagees appointed individual high street solicitors to act for them as did the borrowers and the two lawyers were very careful to ensure that nothing that could come back to haunt them occurred. What has happened in the past couple of years is that most mortgagees are insisting that you use their a solicitor from their "panel" which is mosly big firms whose main client is the mortgagee. I assume that this is a profit making exercise with the solicitors remitting a portion of each fee to the mortgagee or some such deal and it occurs to be that when it's all in house it can be a bit slapdash. Especially in situations where the mortgagees offer the borrower free in house legals if your use their solicitors there must be a great temptation to slip something like this in. If everyone who had been a victim of this launched a claim against the lawyers with the Law Society as well as joining Mark's wonderful campaign I think that would raise the issue in an another forum and I am going to be sending a synopsis of all of this to the legal editor of THE TIMES. Does anyone else agree this is a good tactic?

Reply to the comment left by "Concerned Landlord" at "04/10/2013 - 13:28":

Our barrister will soon be commenting on all these points. Sooner the better to end the speculation. Who cares what the plank of our case will be as long as it's a winning one. I'm confident our case is justified and we shall win but don't ask me to bet on which particular legal point the case will turn.
My docs and cheque are in the post to Justin to get the ball started rolling ASAP.

Reply to the comment left by "Incensed Landlord" at "04/10/2013 - 13:34":

To all - Even if you signed an acceptance of offer letter to confirm that you had carefully read the Mortgage Conditions booklet, which I suspect you will have done by the way, I still think the law of contra preferentem as explained by Mark Alexander will be your saving grace. Expect your barrister to provide multiple arguments, some of which will be very robust and other which will be more borderline. That is just the way it is done and will also be the reason for the barristers opinion on the actions taken by Bank of Ireland running to 32 pages.

To Mark - It is likely that West Brom Mortgages will be considering calling in your loan and subsequently issuing you with a statutory demand threatening bankruptcy of you don't pay up within 21 days as opposed to seeking possession of the property they are holding as security for your mortgage. If this does happen seek professional advice immediately with a view to getting the statutory demand set aside. I am not telling you this to frighten you, merely to warn you of tactics they will be considering. If West Brom mortgages have any sense they will realise that you are a very well connected opponent who is unlikely to buckle under pressure. Don't be bullied, if they do try this on, it is unlikely but possible, they will not beat you providing you have strong legal representation.

You are doing an excellent job.

I am going through my paperwork and sending off cheque to this weekend. Thanks for all your hard work!

Reply to the comment left by "Annette Stone" at "04/10/2013 - 13:36":

I will certainly run the idea of writing to the Law Society past Justin when we next speak. I will let you know if he thinks it is a good idea.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Anon " at "04/10/2013 - 13:51":

Thank you, and I agree, I had already thought this through and I am prepared if it happens, unlikely as it might be as you have suggested.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "04/10/2013 - 14:15":

I have just spent 15 minutes talking to Holly O Sullivan (Customer Relations Officer) at WBBS who I must say was very well rehearsed.

She confirmed the following:

I) They have been planning this for a significant amount of time (years) and have informed the FCA a long time ago - but she said they are (can you believe it) are NOT interested because "BTL mortgages are not regulated .... by The FCA.

ii) The key point she kept on mentioning was that my mortgage broker confirmed on the application that 'I' had read "all the T&C's) - I said this was a very clever angle to rely upon.

iii) They appear to be deflecting the liability of advice back to mortgage brokers as she said she would be "very worried" if the Mortgage Broker had not read all (THREE SETS OF T&C's) of the T&C's themselves in order to advise their clients. I asked what training or product information did they provide the broker network about the deficiencies in their LIFE TIME tracker product and then she kept saying she would have expected broker to read all of the T&C.

iv) I asked her how have the WBBS arrived at their decision to decide which customers would enjoy this rate hike. She mentioned it was a "business decision" and I asked what the qualifying criteria would be - she said any customer who was linked to 3 or more properties. I said that why was I being discriminated against someone who would only own 2 properties. She never really had an answer an kept saying it was a business decision and she could barely agree that I was being discriminated against - her words were ' I am sorry you feel like that'.

I think the discrimination argument is one worth exploring as why should only a certain type of customer be affected when in their own words, the t&c's apply to all of the customers. If the WBBS are that short of funds, then if there are a large %age of customers who are not affected by the rate hike, why not inflict the pain on a higher number of customers and charge a 1% rate hike (for example) that will potentially earn them more money. I am not advocating this, but I think we need to flush out of the WBBS how they have arrived at their decision and bring the perceived audience who are not currently affected (i.e. non professional landlords) into the discussion so the FCA are more likely to become concerned ?

iiv) Finally I asked why was this such a special T&C (section 5) not highlighted in any other documentation or communication and she said "THAT NO SPECIFIC T&C TAKES A PREFERENCE OVER ANY OTHERS" (i.e. they are all as important as each other)- I think this is a lovely angle they are using...

Reply to the comment left by "stuart marshall" at "04/10/2013 - 14:33":

Thanks for the very interesting resume of your tel con with La O'Sullivan.

Nice to know that in our business lives we can choose whom we wish to rip off provided it is a "business decision".

These customer relations bozos are certainly well rehearsed. Hardly surprising as WB would have anticipated a few calls! However they do make mistakes. Like I posted way back when I called WB - upon receipt of the bombshell letter - I discussed much the same issues as Stuart. I spoke with Catherine/Katherine. On subject of why multiple owners only she put her foot in her mouth saying it had been a "business decision" to "target" multiple owners. I commented that she had said it all and let the cat out of the bag, whereupon she tried to climb down saying "target" was a word she should not have used. Too late said I.

Reply to the comment left by "Richard Adams" at "04/10/2013 - 14:58":

I have just sent the following thoughts to Nicole Blackmore, Personal Finance Editor of Telegraph. She is very keen to pick this up when she is back from holiday a week on Monday.

“West Brom BS Pay the Hike or we can call the loan in within 1 month”

Has anyone got other contacts at the newspapers (local or national) to see if they are willing to expose the industry/FCA and warn every single mortgage borrower in the UK that a similar T&C about calling the mortgage back within a month could apply to them ?

Hi Nicole

I saw your article about the West Brom, thank-you for supporting.

Another ‘angle’ that I thought would be an interesting article and highlights and questions what The FCA actually stand for and what are they doing to promote trust and confidence in the UK banking market.

On the one hand, The FCA say they are not interested in the WBBS decision to hike rates on their Life Time Tracker product. However, the general remit of the The FCA is to promote and ensure the UK Public have confidence and trust in the UK Retail Banking Industry.

I have seen letters from the WBBS as a response to a customers complaint that position their decision to attempt to increase the Lifetime Tracker rate as a better option to customers than forcing calling in the mortgage loans within a 1 month period by issuing a statutory demand for bankruptcy if the loan is not repaid back in full in this time.

Now, this raises the question about other lenders (all UK mortgages have a condition that allows the lender to call the loan in at any time and this must be repaid in full within 1 month) could follow suit and threaten borrowers to pay higher rates or they will call the loan in.

This condition of mortgages being asked to be repaid back with 1 months notice at the choice of the lender is not a very well known fact.

I would suggest maybe 1 person out of 10 in your office would know this is a standard condition of any UK mortgage.

Is it about time, the UK Public should be made aware of this and in particular, the stance and positioning the West Brom BS are highlighting this condition to borrowers who are not happy to pay an unlawful hike in rates ?

Is it about time The FCA got involved before other lenders take the same stance ?

Thanks, Stuart Marshall.