#WestBromTracker

#WestBromTracker

20:21 PM, 19th January 2015, About 7 years ago 124

Text Size

#WestBromTrackerMark Smith, Head of Chambers at Cotswold Barristers will be representing landlords at the Commercial Court at Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London this Wednesday in the UK’s largest ever direct access legal case. #WestBromTracker

We will be tweeting under hashtag #WestBromTracker so please feel to join in the discussion on Twitter and re-tweet. You may also wish to use hashtags such as #mortgage #news and #media but #WestBromTracker is the essential one.

Please wish us luck because this really is a David and Goliath fight. The people affected by these tracker rate margin hikes trusted their mortgage lenders to treat them fairly. Via Property118 a group has managed to raise over £500,000 to have a case against the West Bromwich Mortgage Company (a wholy owned subsidiary of West Bromwich Building Society) tested in Court. The funds raised to fight the case have not come from the super rich, they’ve been contributed by hard working folk who chose to invest their hard earned savings into providing much needed rental property. They trusted the building society to honour the mortgage deal they signed up to but sadly this trust has been broken. 

The Bank of Ireland, Manchester Building Society, Skipton Building Society and their wholly owned subsidiary AmberHomeloans have previously got away with similar rate-hike shenanigans but it is not too late for affected borrowers to take action. Hopefully a win on Wednesday 21st January will discourage other mortgage lenders from tinkering with tracker rate mortgage margins in the future and will also inspire borrowers affected by similar rate hikes to fund legal action against those mortgage lenders too.

Trading Standards, the Advertising Standards Association and the FCA all refused to get involved in the dispute. The Financial Ombudsman Service appear to have chosen to ignore all contractual legal arguments and to make very strange decisions in all complaints regarding actions of mortgage lenders in respect of hiking interest rates when their sales pitch clearly linked rates to a transparent pricing structure.

Watch this space and please feel free to post comments.

NOTES FOR JOURNALISTS

  • Before the credit crunch tracker mortgages were incredibly popular, there are an estimated 1 million tracker rate mortgages in the UK, many of which are secured against peoples own homes
  • Tracker rate mortgages are intended to provide transparent pricing. The rate of interest is directly linked to the Bank of England base rate plus an agreed margin for an agreed period of time, in many cases for the lifetime of the loan.
  • Some unscrupulous lenders have increased the margin charged over the base rate and this has been the basis of our legal argument against the West Bromwich Building Society, i.e. the contract did not allow for this to happen.
  • Some peoples mortgage payments have more than doubled despite the base rate not having moved for nearly six years.
  • Hikes in tracker rate margins haven’t only affected landlords
  • In 2013 Bank of Ireland increased the margins on over 15,000 tracker rate mortgages, those affected were both homeowners and people who had taken buy to let mortgages in order to buy properties as investments to provide for their retirement. To date, insufficient funds have been raised to take this case to Court.
  • People naturally tighten their purse strings when their mortgage costs increase and many have expected regulators to step in and help them. Sadly the regulators’ appetite to take on the banks and building societies who have breached their mortgage terms by increasing their tracker rate mortgage margins has been none existent. That’s why Court action has been so necessary.
  • If every affected person had committed just £500 to fight for their rights in Court this sharp practice from mortgage lenders would have been nipped in the bud a long time ago.
  • In 2010 Skipton Building Society and their wholly owned subsidiary Amber Homeloans removed a contracted interest rate cap from their mortgages which had a similar effect of massively increasing the mortgage payments of a reported 80,000 borrowers. The interest rate cap, which was linked to the bank base rate, was removed despite public announcements from their CEO less than a year before that contractual arrangements would be honoured. A case has never been taken to Court due to lack of financial commitment from affected borrowers. more about the Skipton Building Society rate hike and links to source information here >>> http://www.property118.com/skipton-building-society-legal-action/64751/
  • Both Property118 and Cotswold Barristers are keen to pursue legal action against Skipton Building Society and the Bank of Ireland if public interest in doing so is sufficiently high and subject to the required level of funding being attained.
  • The required level of financial commitment to take on the other offending lenders would be circa 2,000 borrowers each committing around £500.


Comments

by graham mcauley

19:22 PM, 22nd January 2015, About 7 years ago

I noticed the Telegraph report of the case, the West Brom said to the judge it was better to increase the rates than to call in the loans, or words to that effect, if I were the judgeyou would have to think about that, Can they actually do that, call in the loan for no reason?

by Devon Landlords

19:36 PM, 22nd January 2015, About 7 years ago

Do you think we need to go back to discussing any issues on the secure forum until the next hearing/judgement or am I being unduly paranoid? Di

by Devon Landlords

19:39 PM, 22nd January 2015, About 7 years ago

Sorry - scrub my last comment - just looked at my emails!

by Mark Alexander

19:39 PM, 22nd January 2015, About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Peter & Di Cole" at "22/01/2015 - 19:36":

Depends what we are discussing. I will be staring a new secure thread tomorrow, see your emails.
.

by All BankersAreBarstewards Smith

20:34 PM, 22nd January 2015, About 7 years ago

it is very reassuring and interesting to those of us who have contributed, but who have not been litigants, to know at least some of what has been happening.. thank you Mark for this thread.

by Rob

20:43 PM, 22nd January 2015, About 7 years ago

Did i read it correctly that it only affected account holders with 3 or more properties? If so why?

by Graham Durkin

20:45 PM, 22nd January 2015, About 7 years ago

Did anybody ask the JUDGE whether he had a S.V.R MORTGAGE or a TRACKER MORTGAGE ,

only asking whether a conflict of interest arises at all.

by Mark Alexander

20:48 PM, 22nd January 2015, About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Rob " at "22/01/2015 - 20:43":

They admitted in the Court room that they only targeted with 3 or more properties on the basis that they were most unlikely to benefit from any consumer protection law!

The journalist who were present obviously heard that. The judge asked why they raised the point as it wasn't the basis of our claim. Iny opinion they made a mockery of themselves and showed their true colours even though they had no obvious reason to do so. They also avoided using the words tracker mortgage until Mark Smith pointed out to the Judge that that's how their own CEO described the mortgages in his witness statement.
.

by Graham Durkin

20:50 PM, 22nd January 2015, About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Rob " at "22/01/2015 - 20:43":

Because the west brom wanted to divide and conquer their B.T.L MORTGAE BOOK,also they classed us as professional landlords because we had 3 or more properties with at least one mortgage with them

by graham mcauley

20:50 PM, 22nd January 2015, About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "22/01/2015 - 10:23":

No they also raised mine and I only have two


Leave Comments

Please Log-In OR Become a member to reply to comments or subscribe to new comment notifications.

Forgotten your password?

BECOME A MEMBER