West Bromwich Building Society Tracker Margins Legal Action

The latest issue of ‘UK Landlord’, the NLA members magazine, has just arrived. This time W Brom is not hidden at all, it’s the 2nd of 2 articles on page 6 which is dedicated to NLA Campaigns.

As I read the article I could feel the tightrope wobbling under their feet as they scarily step along while glancing into an abyss below. But I just don’t understand what they are fearing. That said it is a great step from the NLA – someone affected will see that collective legal action is an option and will find this site fairly easily via Google. Here is the article.

Under the headline “Tracker differential issues” it reads:

“Buy-to-let (BTL) mortgages provide the bulk of the finance available to private landlords in the private-rented sector, so it is unsurprising that the terms and conditions attached to such products are of vital importance to those of us investing in property. It is for this reason that the changes to tracker differentials (the difference between a set base rate and the rate paid by a mortgagor) are unwelcome.

Over the last twelve months, two high profile lenders (Bank of Ireland and West Bromwich Building Society) have taken the decision to increase the tracker differential of their life-time’ tracker BTL products to the detriment of their landlord customers. Understandably, this has created a great deal of dissatisfaction, concern and ultimately financial hardship and has led to a clamour for solutions.

There are no easy answers to the questions raised by those landlords seeking direct action. Some of those affected have opted to take legal action against their lender, either individually and/or collectively under the banner of a popular internet forum. The NLA has not specifically recommended legal action as it is essential that affected landlords choose an appropriate course of action based on their individual circumstances.

For some, with significant exposure to these lenders and relatively limited options, it may be appropriate and beneficial to pursue legal action – which, if successful, could ultimately provide a positive solution. Equally, some landlords will find that the best course of action is to take their business elsewhere when faced with these changes, or choose another avenue based on their business plan.

The NLA has been able to demonstrate industry leadership by presenting the available options to landlords and applying pressure to the regulators and institutions involved, rather than backing individual members’ legal cases. We will continue to work to find solutions which help prevent further developments of this nature and help landlords directly – and we urge members to make an informed decision about their needs based on their own circumstances.”

typical cowardly fence-sitting by NLA – they have become a selling machine in recent years rather than a landlord-supporter… i am no longer a member.

I am very disappointed by the NLA’s lack of action on this.
Too little, too late.
I think the NLA is still a great organisation, of which I have been a member for over 10 years but they really missed on this v important issue – which is a shame for them.
I have certainly made my feelings known on this matter directly to them and their exec.
At the very least they should, as I have done, pointed their 20K members to Property118. It could only have raised their own profile.
A missed opportunity – but at least there is finally some action from them – and that is a good thing.
David Lawrenson
http://www.LettingFocus.com/Blogs

I am no longer a member of the NLA and now I am reminded why. This is a pathetic response from what is supposed be be a leading independant body. In fact it reminds me more of the various UK governmental led bodies. We are left entirely on our own.

The NLA didn’t even have the balls to mention the name of the forum, one can only guess as to the reasons why. I agree with other comments regarding the missed opportunity for the NLA to provide their members with some quality information. They are obviously keen not to recommend legal action, even though they haven’t said why. However, not to even tell their members how to find out about the legal action is very remiss in my opinion.
.

Supportive new article just published in the Investors chronicle >>> http://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/2014/01/13/comment/property-matters/kick-in-the-teeth-for-buy-to-let-landlords-SlSya39gsyv9jgsXmU9fML/article.html
.

Reply to the comment left by “Mark Alexander” at “13/01/2014 – 16:30“:

Jonas Crosland, the author of this piece at the Investors Chronicle (part of the FT), approached me last week after being forwarded my Jan newsletter from a fellow hack at the FT.
Our newsletter had 2 main pieces, one of which was the tracker rate hike story.
Hard copy of the IC with this story should hit news stands on Friday
David Lawrenson
http://www.LettingFocus.com
PRS Advice

Crossland has produced as a clear a summary of the 118 case as i have seen…. well done to whoever did the lobbying on this writer and publication…. we need more of these……

Reply to the comment left by “All BankersAreBarstewards Smith” at “13/01/2014 – 16:49“:

That will be David Lawrenson then who deserves the pat on the back for this one 🙂
.

Reply to the comment left by “Mark Alexander” at “13/01/2014 – 10:04“:

it was my birthday too yesterday Mark – so we must be twins!!