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 August 2013 - Comments: 126
5:12 PM, 28th October 2013, About 12 years ago
Reply to the comment left by “Annette Stone” at “28/10/2013 – 16:58“:
“they would also have to explain how they ended up with such a mortgage book which has become so unprofitable that they have withdrawn from the buy to let market.”
(a) The events which have impacted the financial world since August 2007 are well documented.
(b) The oldest serving members of the current board were appointed in 2009. So there’s no doubt that there’ll be substantiation behind the commercial decisions they are making. .
Member Since August 2013 - Comments: 126
5:18 PM, 28th October 2013, About 12 years ago
Reply to the comment left by “Gary Nock” at “28/10/2013 – 16:32“:
Financial Year End is 31st March. So holding AGM at end of July seems acceptable. Allowing time for accounts to be drafted, signed off and notice of the AGM given.
Member Since September 2013 - Comments: 178
5:25 PM, 28th October 2013, About 12 years ago
Well said Mark…I’m with you 100%
Member Since June 2013 - Comments: 186
5:33 PM, 28th October 2013, About 12 years ago
Colin please forgive me if I have missed something but presumably all the mortgages that were granted at very low rates were priced because of the prevailing financial situation. I cannot recall if anyone was on a much higher rate and was transferred (at a fee presumably) onto the low tracker. If so, that was another failure of wbbs too husband their funds properly. The borrowers offered this rate did not cause wbbs to over extend their mortgage book and if they offered very low tracker rates to people without the long term funding in place to service the loans what possible recourse can they have to their borrowers. I know what they are trying to do; it’s a rhetorical question!!!
Regarding your second point presumably all these directors were made aware of the scale of wbbs business model and funding before they signed on or did their egos get in the way and they were flattered to be asked. Either way, they appear to be directors of a building society with a failed mortgage book and unsatisfactory long term funding which they are trying to rectify at their borrower’s expense
Strange how there is still something quaint and quasi respectable about a mutual building society in people’s minds whereas, in reality, this is a Banking scandal just like the others!!!
Member Since October 2013 - Comments: 59
5:42 PM, 28th October 2013, About 12 years ago
Mark
Stupid question (sic) of course I am with you 100%, without you leading we would not have got this far. As I have said having 6 I stand to lose a lot BUT I will not be trod on I’ll fight. Its the principal NOT the money ( I obviously budgeted for the interest rate at the time I took it out, fortunately it went down. So did they and they lost, {don’t grouse now}). As a previous comment said I’d sooner give the fund more money than give it to the WBBS. We have to trust in your choice of solicitor and his choice of barrister I believe like you we have a good case or I wouldn’t be sending these sentiments, however I wait like you for legal counsel .I suspect impaitience is easy for most of us and legal cogs turn exceedingly slowly.
Member Since August 2013 - Comments: 126
6:13 PM, 28th October 2013, About 12 years ago
Reply to the comment left by “Annette Stone” at “28/10/2013 – 17:33“:
I don’t indulge in conspiracy theories. The boards of all the major banks have changed since 2008. So have all had to start from a position with the hand they’ve been dealt. Not least the tighter solvency regulation.
Member Since June 2013 - Comments: 186
6:21 PM, 28th October 2013, About 12 years ago
Colin – no conspiracy theory on my part. A simple statement that they must have all known what they were getting into. I think today has been the most productive day so far on this issue so I am with all of those who feel that we should just move on with Mark at the helm and a sensible cohort of people seeing this issue through to the end. No conspiracies, no speculators, no short termism – just a steely determination to bring this to the attention of as many people as possible so that we either get a Court decision or wbbs abandon their claims; either one of which will discourage any other mortgagees from trying it on!!!
Member Since October 2013 - Comments: 11
8:05 PM, 28th October 2013, About 12 years ago
Managed to get a face to face meeting with my MP on Friday, fingers crossed he will be willing to help!
Comments: 55
8:10 PM, 28th October 2013, About 12 years ago
My MP has just asked if I would like him to write to the CEO of West Bromwich on my behalf, he has been really helpful so far.
Member Since January 2011 - Comments: 12193 - Articles: 1395
8:25 PM, 28th October 2013, About 12 years ago
Fantastic feedback today, well to to all for keeping the pressure on centres of influence 🙂
.