Mark Robert Alexander vs West Bromwich Mortgage Company High Court Judgement

Mark Robert Alexander vs West Bromwich Mortgage Company High Court Judgement

10:59 AM, 29th January 2015, About 9 years ago 390

Text Size

Today was Judgement Day in the case of Mark Robert Alexander (me) vs the West Bromwich Mortgage Company. I was representing a group of 360 affected borrowers, who between them contributed nearly £500,000 to fund the legal action. I am extremely disappointed to report that we didn’t get the News we were so desperately hoping to receive. West Brom Tracker Judgement


Could this be the end of tracker mortgages as we know them for up to 1 million people in the UK?

The Judge, Mr Justice Teare ruled that the mortgage company were within their rights to increase the premium (margin) on the rate they charge above the Bank of England base rate. He also ruled that West Bromwich Mortgage Company had the right to call in mortgages with 30 days notice. Clearly we are shocked at his decision and we anticipate outrage from the general public too.

The special conditions in my OFFER OF LOAN state (I’ve added bold capitalisation for emphasis) ….

“After 30th June 2010 your loan reverts to a variable rate which is the same as the Bank of England Base Rate with a premium of 1.99% UNTIL THE TERM END.”

NOTE the words “until the term end”, which I have always understood to mean that the premium of 1.99% over the Bank of England Base Rate would apply to the remainder of my 25 year mortgage after the initial 4 year fixed rate period was completed. The Bank of England Base rate today is 0.5% so you would be forgiven for thinking that I should be paying a rate of 2.49%. However, the West Bromwich Mortgage Company have added another 1.5%, meaning that I’m now paying them 3.99%. When they first increased the rate, the margin they added on was 1.99%. Should I be thankful they reduced it? What’s to stop them putting it up to 10% tomorrow? Well according to the Judge, Mr Justice Teare, apparently very little!

The Special Conditions, which the mortgage company are relying upon to vary the premium (margin), are generic to all of their mortgage products and come in the form of a booklet. It is very obvious that the Special Conditions booklet is generic to their entire mortgage range because in one section it says the property cannot be let, which is clearly inconsistent with a Buy To Let Mortgage.

To deal with issues of inconsistency between the OFFER OF LOAN and the Special Conditions booklet the mortgage company also has the following condition in the very same Standard Conditions booklet it has been allowed to justify the increase in the premium charged ….

“These Mortgage Conditions incorporate any terms contained in the OFFER OF LOAN. If there are any INCONSISTENCIES between the terms in the Mortgage Conditions and those contained in the OFFER OF LOAN then THE TERMS CONTAINED IN THE OFFER OF LOAN WILL PREVAIL.”

I accept that the mortgage company needs the contractual ability to vary their Standard Variable Mortgage rates in their generic Special Conditions booklet and I had every reason to believe that the clause they are now relying upon to increase my interest rate only exists because Standard Variable Rate mortgages are not pegged to another rate in the same way as a tracker. I had no reason to assume that the clause allowing them to make variations to interest rates would affect me, after all I had a Tracker Rate Mortgage with a premium over the Bank of England base rate UNTIL THE TERM END, which in my case is in the year 2031.

Would you have come to the same conclusions I did?

#WestBromTrackerThe reason I took the lead and encouraged other affected borrowers to fund this expensive legal battle was that the industry regulators have a proven track record of allowing banks and building societies to get away with this particular form of “daylight robbery”. In 2013 the Bank of Ireland hiked its rates for over 14,000 customers with Tracker Mortgages, many of them were home-owners, NOT Landlords. The regulators proved ineffective for affected complainants. Prior to that, in 2009, the Skipton Building Society CEO publicly confirmed  that their Standard Variable Rate mortgages were capped at 3% over the Bank of England base rate and that pledge would be honoured despite market conditions. A year later that promise was broken and the regulators did nothing about that either!

The problem that all borrowers have faced when complaining to regulators has been that all mortgage lenders who have been a party to these rate hikes to date have very sneakily targeted borrowers who ‘fall between the cracks’ in terms of consumer protection regulation. WBMC targeted borrowers who own three or more properties whereas the Bank of Ireland relied on a date when mortgage selling regulations changed. The the Bank of Ireland case this provided them with an opportunity to mercilessly target homeowner mortgages too. Anybody who took out a Tracker Mortgage before the MCOB (Mortgage Conduct of Business) rules were introduced on 31st October 2004, AND anybody who owns three or more properties has good cause to be VERY worried following the judgement passed today.

There are an estimated 1 million Tracker Rate mortgages in the UK, they were very popular in the decade prior to the Credit Crunch. I have other tracker mortgages with other Buy to Let lenders and I am fearful that if they follow suit all my hard work to generate money to invest for my retirement will be undone. Many homeowners with tracker rate mortgages could also lose their homes.

I simply couldn’t allow this to continue unchallenged. Somebody had to stand up to the financial bullies and I am proud to have been one of them, despite this awful news.

The question now is; “Should we appeal?”

We already have £68,912.39 lodged with Barco (The Bar Council Escrow Account Service) and we have paid £350,000 into the Court on account of the other sides claimed legal expenses. The Judge is yet to rule on costs to date so we may get some of the money paid into Court back too. We don’t yet know how much an appeal will cost in terms of paying the others sides legal fees if we lose, however, our barrister is so dissapointed by the verdict that he has already offered to represent us in the Court of Appeal on a no-win-no-fee basis, despite this not being covered in his original terms of engagement.

I also worry about the potential impact on tenants. The ramifications of lenders being able to hike up Tracker Mortgage interest rates or call in unprofitable loans on a whim (even if they are not in default) could no doubt result in mass defaults of repayments and inevitable repossessions of the quality rental property which has been funded by Buy To Let mortgage lenders. The knock on effects to tenants in terms of security of tenure and the availability of quality accommodation, afforded by the very existence of Tracker Rate buy to let mortgages, could be devastating!

Please share your thoughts in the comments section towards the bottom of this page.

Mr Justice Teare’s 20 page reasoning for his ruling is available free of charge via the Courts. However, I am asking everybody reading this article to donate £50 by completing the form below and in return we will immediately redirect you to a full copy of the Judges ruling. All money received will be used in a marketing campaign to raise awareness of the potential consequences of this dreadful decision. If you want to donate more than £50, simply order two copies for £100 or three for £150 etc. We believe we have already raised enough money to fight an appeal. However, we must not dip into these funds to promote the importance of the case, hence the need for an additional fundraising campaign.

Download the full judgement

  • Price: £ 50.00

Share This Article


14:09 PM, 29th January 2015, About 9 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Rob " at "29/01/2015 - 11:58":

nope - cos our 2 were taken out in 2006

Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118

14:21 PM, 29th January 2015, About 9 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "David Vickers" at "29/01/2015 - 13:40":

Hi David

Costs were indeed addressed and Mark Smith did a VERY good job of persuading the Judge that the other sides claims for £370,000 in total and 60% of that on account were unreasonable.

The Judge awarded £120,000 on account and a detailed review thereafter. He actually commented that he thought even 60% of the costs claimed by the other side was excessive.

West Brom's QC argued that their costs were so high because they needed to apply our argument and to consider every represented mortgage account. Mark Smith's retort was they must have done that as a matter of course anyway before deciding which accounts to apply the rate hike to.

Appalled Landlord

14:22 PM, 29th January 2015, About 9 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "29/01/2015 - 13:27":

Was he shocked that he won?

Andy Bell

14:25 PM, 29th January 2015, About 9 years ago

Just a wishful thought.

Is case law only binding after an appeal judgement?

If so:

Could a more positive ulterior motive be in play if it was thought that WB would not have appealed against a loss.

Either way, I'm in for the appeal. (subject to affordability)


14:32 PM, 29th January 2015, About 9 years ago

If you go on to win an appeal can WB then appeal against that ?

Also if you did win wouldn't WB just call in the loan ?

Considering selling my two BoI properties & investing elsewhere, then its a 100% win for me.

Graham Durkin

15:10 PM, 29th January 2015, About 9 years ago

MARK A , You have indicated that you are requesting MARK S to apply for leave to appeal this judgement ,could somebody give a rough time-line on this initial decision to either be granted or denied an appeal on this matter

Also if leave is granted ,what would be an appropriate amount to be raised for this appeal, the question will be asked why not today many thanks

Neil Patterson

15:19 PM, 29th January 2015, About 9 years ago

This could appear to be a win for snobbish intellectual word play jousting over taking the helicopter view of what is obviously right and moral.

Mark Smith Head of Chambers Cotswold Barristers

15:23 PM, 29th January 2015, About 9 years ago

The first stage of appeal is a paper application for permission, which does not expose us to any cost risk-apart from a small court fee.
This will be replied to within weeks. We will either get permission for a full hearing, or rejection, and if the latter we can make an oral application, again without cost risk (as permission is a matter between us and the Court)

If we are given permission we have enough funds left to cover adverse costs without recourse to the members

user_ 1346

15:33 PM, 29th January 2015, About 9 years ago

Obfuscated Data


15:38 PM, 29th January 2015, About 9 years ago

Probably wont make a difference but ive just emailed David Cameron telling him what happened today with a link to this page asking him to read it and sort it out! In the nicest possible way of course )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 39

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership


Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Tax Planning Book Now