Anthony Wilson

it has been an incredible journey but an amazing result.. well done Mark and everyone in your team for finally ensuring that justice was done and that lenders will need to be very careful now about relying to any general small print which in practice contradicts the specific terms agreed.. Common sense rules eventually sometimes at least.. ..I remember an anecdote I heard once.. barrister in the court of appeal in an opening address begins.. " a contract is made when there is offer, acceptance, consideration and an intention to enter legal relations..." The judge stops her to say.." I think we can assume in a court of law that we know the principles of a basic contract... " she replies.. "I made that mistake once your honour.. I am not going to do it again !!".... Read More

Thanks Mark

I would have liked to have been there.. no doubt I will be able to read the judgement in due course so fingers crossed.... Read More

Furthermore it is a disappointment that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 does not apply to control mortgage lending because S.71 contains an obligation for the court to consider whether a term is fair if it creates a significant imbalance between the parties even if it has never been raised by any of the parties as an issue.

It seems to me that one day there will be a duty of fairness implied into every mortgage contract to protect uninformed property owners against losing their equity unbeknowingly to unscrupulous lenders. I come across victims of this type of behaviour regularly.... Read More

Good evening all. I note from the Lexis Nexis report that Malcolm Waters QC makes a very important point that Mark Alexander was not a consumer and therefore issues of fairness do not apply to the appeal which was simply based on contract. I have read quite a few of the comments from those who were at the appeal hearing and unfortunately in my experience the incredulity or otherwise of a judge in any hearing listening or questioning evidence is not necessarily an indication that we will achieve the right result.

One aspect that may be worthy of consideration however is . if the appeal court does not find in Mark's favour.. is it worth (and do we have time ... presumably yes because this is an ongoing change) another bite at the cherry on the basis that (as Malcolm Waters pointed out) it was a dangerous assumption to make that the borrowers were not consumers simply because they had three or more buy to let properties. Interestingly this months edition of the practical lawyer talks about implied "good faith " clauses. It states that courts are not likely to imply a duty of good faith into a contract negotiated by experienced parties but there are two specific exceptions... where one is automatically implied.. employment contracts and and contract of a fiduciary nature (in addition to those which are imposed by statute). Food for thought?... Read More

Luther

See this site and see below...

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-higher-rates-of-stamp-duty-land-tax-sdlt-on-purchases-of-additional-residential-properties/higher-rates-of-stamp-duty-land-tax-sdlt-on-purchases-of-additional-residential-properties

I have read the sdlt guidelines in detail in the guidance note dated 16th March 2016 which has in Chapter 8 34 Q and A s about various situations..

I am sure Sunny is wrong because if you are not selling a home it falls within the example in Q2 and the higher rate is payable.

Q7 explains that if your share of existing property is less than £40,000.00 then the higher rates will not apply..(but it does not explain how any mortgage is dealt with).

Q27 The reply implies that trustees of a bare trust are not liable for the additional SDLT if they purchase for themselves.. therefore if you are simply a trustee for property which is beneficially owned for your parents and you have not enjoyed any personal benefit from it and will not do so then you should not pay the higher rate on the purchase of your new home. To make sure you could do a declaration of trust with your parents confirming that you have no beneficial interest in the other properties.. but as Patrick and Grahame point out.. there may be other implications eg increased inheritance tax if it applies if you inherit the properties! Hope this helps.... Read More

Is you have an assured tenancy as opposed to an AST then the shelter website provides useful information of the basis on which you can be asked to leave.. the compulsory ones are quite limited.. otherwise the court has a discretion.. see below..

My feeling is that you should invite the landlord and their solicitors to provide you with a copy of every single tenancy agreement you have signed since you took up occupation and not provide them with any information until they have answered this question and provided you with copies.

Reasons for eviction

The reasons for eviction that landlords can use are set out by law. They are known as 'grounds for possession'. They are split into two groups, mandatory grounds and discretionary grounds.

Mandatory grounds

If your landlord proves a mandatory ground for possession the court has no choice but to make a possession order. The court has to be satisfied, however, that the ground exists and you may be able to prove otherwise. Examples of mandatory grounds include:
you are more than eight weeks behind with the rent
your landlord's mortgage lender is repossessing the property and you were informed in advance that your land lord used to live in the property
the property is being redeveloped

It may be possible to delay the possession order for up to six weeks if it is causing you exceptional hardship.

Discretionary grounds

If your landlord is using a discretionary ground for possession the court can only make a possession order if it is reasonable to do so. Examples of discretionary grounds include:
you have some rent arrears
persistent delays in paying your rent
you have broken your tenancy agreement
you have caused nuisance or used the property for illegal activities
you have allowed the condition of the property to deteriorate

The court takes your circumstances (such as your health and income) into account when it decides whether it is reasonable for a possession order to be made.

After a court order takes effect your landlord can ask the bailiffs to evict you.... Read More

sorry caught up with the whole chain now... do you remember how you first paid rent... was it by standing order .. if so get the first bank statement which shows a rent payment.. also .. what about records of gas and electricity....bills etc.. the first date you moved in may be important.... Read More

Nicola

You need to find out if your tenancy commenced before or after the 15th January 1989.. if before that date you may well be a tenant protected under the Rent Acts and have rights not to be evicted and to apply for a registered rent...

This is an important date.. so you need to be sure .. if you became a tenant before that date and have been in occupation continuously since that date then everything else may be irrelevant,.,. if after that date but before 1996 it is possible you may be an assured tenant ,... not an assured shorthold tenant,.. this gives you additional protection.. you need if possible to find the original documents or if you have lost them.. invite the landlord to provide you with copies.. if you email them to me on twilson@ashleywilson.co.uk i will look at them for you..my details are on the website www.ashleywilson.co.uk.
By the way due to the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 no one can evict you from your home without a court order and usually a court appointed bailiff appointment but you could be exposed to significant costs liability if the landlord is entitled to recover possession and is forced to go down this route.

Tony Wilson... Read More

In the event that the appeal is not ultimately successful I believe there is potentially another strategy to all buy to let borrowers and it is as follows;-

We agree for a barrister to provide a general form of particulars of claim to be prepared on a simple estoppel basis... each person calculates their loss on each mortgage to a maximum of £10,000.00 in each case.. this being the small claim limit where it can be argued that one is not exposed to liability for the other sides costs if one loses... the court fee for a claim issued on line is now £410.00. This is recoverable if successful.

Separate claims are issued by each buy to let borrower up and down the country on this basis to this limit.. each person represents themselves at the hearing.. if one wins then .. when the difference in the mortgage liability increases by another £10,000.00 one could issue another claim.

In my view this would be a completely justified course of conduct bearing in mind the outrageous sum that the West Bromwich have claimed in costs to date...it also utilises a massive amount of their resources to defend so many separate claims and and would result hopefully in all of us achieving our objective of bringing the West Brom to book on an estoppel basis without any exposure to their crazy costs liability.(subject to counsels advice.).... Read More

... Read More

I am not sure that the giving of leave to appeal automatically means that the judge was wrong but it is right that an appeal should be allowed on a public interest basis alone.. almost irrespective of the specific facts of this case.. also I expect many of us have terms and conditions which vary in some degree from the ones being relied on for Marks case so even losing this case on appeal does not automatically close the door to others...this is why it is important to understand the documents and the exact phraseology used at each hearing... however it is a big step to take to go from where we are now to pursuing individual solicitors and financial advisors for negligence...the fact that the West Brom adopted the policy we all believe they are bound by before changing the rules unilaterally suggests to me that negligence cases against advisors would be difficult to pursue and are likely to be expensive and time consuming to maintain.

The other alternative would of course be to co-ordinate a mass demonstration at the West Broms offices ...and other legitimate bases of peaceful protest....booking individual appointments to discuss the situation with chief executive Jonathan Westhoff (who is not a director) perhaps or one of the directors of which there appear to be three currently Thomas Michael Lynch ( DOB 24/03/1963) , Stephen John Smart (DOB 10/10/1960 ) and James Roy Babbington Wright (DOB 21/06/1966). Two shares in issue in total .. each in favour of the West Bromwich Building Society and the auditors KPMG ceased acting as auditors on or around the 28th October 2014. No explanation provided.
Two directors resigned or retired in 2014 namely Paul David Field and Andrew Peter Conroy. Mr Lynch has been a director since 08.08.2002 and therefore would appear to be the key decision maker. The two other directors were both appointed in 2014.

The connected companies appear to be West Bromwich Homes Limited (of which Mr Westhoff is a director with Neil Noakes and Peter Southcott (profit to 31.03.2014 £5,643,000 (gross margin 67%)), WBBS (SRS) limited(pension company ) (of which Mr Westhoff and Mark Gibbard appear to be directors) and Sandwell Finance Holdings Limited of whom the shareholder is Wilmington Trust S P Services (London ) Limited (assets £25,000.00 and liabilities £24,999.00) It appears to hold 505 directorships as well as being the shareholder of this company.The directors are Mr Lynch, John Traynor and Mark Filer. Mr Lynch's personal address in Bromsgrove is listed under this company in case anyone wishes to write to him directly.
According to the published accounts for West Bromwich Mortgage Company Limited (co number 02773114) for 31st March 2014 the net profits before tax where £1,909,000.00 and after tax £3,897,000.00. Presumably a tax refund?. No doubt the 31st March 2015 accounts will make interesting reading..

Given the profits from WBMCL and West Bromwich Homes Limited the building society appears to be in good shape.

Headline from June 6th 2014;-
The new 70,000 sq ft five-storey building next to the BT regional business centre off the A41 island in West Bromwich is due for completion in spring 2015 and will accommodate up to 700 staff.

Nick Trueman, a spokesman for the West Brom said: "Our new head office will represent a modern, efficient and environmentally friendly base from which the business can expand with our people fully equipped to support and serve our membership."

Lets hope they can serve their customers a little better than they have up to now.

Tony Wilson... Read More

Mark well done .. this is a significant step in the right direction.... certainly the issue of proportionality must be relevant to the costs they have claimed to date also.. is it possible that the decision to grant leave and the skeleton arguments submitted could be made available to us... the article about West Brom profits was also quite telling.. I look forward to hearing what the appeal date will be in due course.. presumably a one day hearing as no new evidence is likely to be admissible.. will it be a public forum.? Another date when a strong physical presence from buy to let borrowers showing support may be helpful? Tony Wilson.... Read More

Hello Mark Tony Wilson here... just wondered what the latest update was on the situation with the West Brom .. is it still live?... Read More

John Jones Hello

Were you paying them anything at all after the interest rate hike?

Did you challenge the appointment of a receiver?

Were you in negative equity before the interest rate hike?

What warning did you receive (if any ) of the threat to appoint a receiver?

Were you complying with your mortgage conditions before the interest rate hike?

If so it seems to be that you may have a potentially significant damages claim if the appeal is successful.

I have been paying all my tracker mortgages at the old rate but in view of the judgement I need to find a lump sum to bring the mortgages into line at the new rate to avoid an LPA appointment.

I will keep everyone posted if West Brom cause problems on this...

Mark Alexander continues to do an amazing job and my feeling is that we all need to see this through to the bitter end in view of the implications not just for ourselves but for everyone who has ever been sold a tracker mortgage.

Tony Wilson... Read More

Did you see the program last night on Panorama;-

" did the bank wreck my business"

I have first hand experience of RBS and GRG (Global Re-structuring Group) and the only reason my wife and I still have a property portfolio is because I am a solicitor and we refused to bow to the substantial pressure we were put under and I had the access to the expertise necessary to resist that pressure. It can be viewed on iplayer.. the name Chris Sullivan is a name which is familiar to me personally.
It is important to know that banks and lending institutions cannot be relied on to deliver .. voluntarily.. As Vince Cable says in the program.. the relationship between banks and SMEs is a very unbalanced and unfair one..
It is only by taking collective action that we are insulated against significant costs falling on the few.. the judiciary have a habit of supporting lenders (largely due to the documentation forced upon borrowers by the inequality of bargaining power ).. so only by collective action can we force the judiciary to consider the inequality in bargaining power more comprehensively....
This type of action.. this collective power .. forces change .. change in attitudes .. change in legislation and changes in decision making by everyone in a position of power.. the Berlin Wall came down for this reason.. this mortgage documentation is for us the Berlin Wall behind which this financial institution attempts to justify its dictatorial policy ..21st January 2015 needs to be the day when people say no to being treated unfairly.. and the West Brom Wall comes down.

I put about £15,000.00 into this fight because I believe we have to put our money where our mouths are...

Other people may benefit without contributing .. so be it...... but I am proud to be part of a litigation case that I have contributed to because I really believe in the justice of it.. I would have loved to have been in Berlin the day the wall came down. Lets make some history.!... Read More

This is an interesting one Mark.. although I am a landlord I also support Shelter.. I am not sure there should be a conflict,,, I think we should all be in support of their campaign against uncontrolled letting fees charged to tenants for example.

Obviously the changes on 15th January 1989 revolutionised the availability of rental accommodation for use by making the system of eviction easier and the rights of tenants have continued to be eroded by subsequent legislation but surely the key has to be to vet your tenants properly as a landlord before you allow them into occupation.

The court system is as we know screwed and the idea of accelerated possession is somewhat of a joke .. but most tenants are much more vulnerable than their private landlords.. there is a balance to be had .. open up a floodgate and expect to be flooded....increased homelessness is too big a price to pay for extending powers of eviction significantly....... Read More

I think the difference is now Richard that the financial resources have now been provided...

Lenders will take note of the following;-

1 The amount of money raised.
2 The number of borrowers contributing
3 the power of social media to co-ordinate support among a disparate group.

I appreciate that borrowers have short memories and the whole financial industry's reputation is in turmoil anyway.. but presumably the directors are still concerned about their employment prospects and the consequences to the organisation they represent if they waste fortunes on unnecessary legal costs.

Also even it we fail.. the government will take note and ultimately pass legislation to avoid borrowers being misled in this way again..

So there will be a positive result to this one way or another and it deserves its place in the media.... Read More

In a 2013 West Bromwich debate
They unilaterally changed the interest rate
From a simple randomly chosen date
For BTL borrowers numbered "8".
It made us irate.
"WBMC" turned from love to hate...
To unlawfully manipulate .. a binding contract rate!!!
The injustice of our fate
And the intervention of Property 118.
Made us BTLI's salivate
with dreams of a WBMC capitulate!
With a war chest to procreate..
Cotswold to co-ordinate..
No time to hesitate...
But a campaign to accelerate.
"David against conglomerate "
a lovely thought to cultivate
and WBMC will compensate
us as our actions fecundate.
With half a bar of potentate
Its easy now to contemplate
That our actions will now be vindicated
When our lawsuit is adjudicated.
We did not vacillate....
We simply speculate to accumulate
But without a leader I postulate
an impossible task to orchestrate
and without social media to communicate
all efforts simply frustrate
So we owe our thanks this important date
To Mark Alexander the Great.... Read More

This being an open forum it seems one of the questions dominating some people's thoughts is what if we win..

do or should all the non- contributers enjoy the benefit of the success?

This is a question that I asked myself before I chose to back the campaign with ten mortgage contributions. (I and my wife have eleven in total). As a solicitor I did think it would not be unrealistic for me to await the outcome of any collective proceedings and keep my powder dry for a personal tilt at WBMC myself or even issue proceedings independently to make sure that proceedings were actually taken. Also I took the view that I could have easily watched from the sidelines and piggy backed on the back of a successful result for 118.for a potentially free ride.

Ultimately i decided that that was neither a fair or a sensible option.

I concluded ;-

1 On balance if I participated then the collective action may have more chance of success on the basis of the greater number of participators the better.

2 I was very impressed with the work which Mark Alexander had done to co -ordinate the interests of borrowers through this forum and outside and felt it would have been criminal to allow that work to go to waste.

3 I felt that given the momentum Mark had achieved we could ultimately benefit thousands of borrowers across the country generally by potentially preventing any lender from trying this sort of stunt ever again.

4 The David v Goliath sentiment we all feel became a highly motivating factor .. to strike one back for the underdog.

5 The time that is invested on our behalf by both Marks cannot be under-estimated,.this is not something i could ever have achieved alone.

6 My financial risk is limited.,. that is not something i could ever have achieved alone.

Yes it is possible that non- participators could piggy back on our anticipated success.. it is logical that if/ once we win and not appealed.. the West Brom may wish to revise its terms for all the BTL borrowers voluntarily to avoid any further claims. Indeed it may be required to do so by the FCA. .but it may not.. the West Brom may be thinking that it will hold out against as many people as possible for as long as possible on the basis that they will sell or re-finance. West Brom has therefore achieved its objective by other means by reducing its liabilities under these mortgages.

The reason I signed up with 10 not 11 is that I am selling one property and had hoped to exchange last week.. in the event it fell through.

In the event that the property does sell I will have to pay the redemption amount at the higher rate.... but.... I still have six years as I see it to pursue West Brom for the extra money they took from me on that mortgage once we win the case.. it may be that Mark Smith as a separate matter will be in a position to pursue the West Brom for any monies not recovered due to property sales or -refinancing since 1st December 2013 by any buy to let borrower.

I do not resent anyone for not participating but I am very proud to stand up and be counted and i am determined to do everything within my power to support this challenge.

Tony Wilson... Read More

... Read More