West Bromwich Building Society Tracker Margins Legal Action

Reply to the comment left by "Dean Turner" at "04/11/2013 - 16:09":

Thanks for the reminder Dean - just sent Watchdog another e:mail! 🙂

My email to Watchdog went earlier too. It reminded me that I'm still to write to my MP, Justine Greening. Did we have a template letter to MPs and if so could someone please point me in the right direction? Alternatively, if anyone who has already written to their MP and had a good reply would be willing to share the main body of their text on here it would help me make sure I've covered all the main points. Many thanks.

I have just got round to sending off my enquiry letter / letter of complaint to Experian Ltd, asking for the justification for giving WB the "multiple property owner" information. I'll keep you all posted as to what I hear back from them, hopefully in the next few days.

Reply to the comment left by "Paul Eastabrook" at "04/11/2013 - 21:54":

Ok, the acknowledgement said that Experian aims to respond within two weeks, or if it requires detailed investigation or feedback from a third party, it may take longer to action. I won't hold my breath then.

Hi Paul, would you mind sharing the content of your letter to Experian here please?
.

Ok, but I'll just need to quickly edit out the bits that are specific to us personally.

Ok, here goes. I've also cc'd it to the Experian complaints team.

4 November 2013

Customer Support Centre
Experian Ltd
PO Box 9000
Nottingham
NG80 7WP

(sent by email to consumer.helpservice@uk.experian.com)

Dear Sirs

Supply of personal data to West Bromwich Building Society

I am endeavouring to obtain an explanation for a disturbing situation to which my family and I seem to have fallen victim.

…………….. recently received a letter from an organisation with which we had previously entered into a contractual arrangement for the supply of a mortgage product in early 2008, based upon credit checks undertaken at the time.

This recent correspondence, received in September 2013, stated that we had been identified … as a multiple property owner and, as such, would face a 2% penalty on our existing mortgage. The organisation concerned, the West Bromwich Building Society (WBBS) had interpreted data supplied by yourselves in order to come to that decision and is now targeting 6,700 of its existing lenders, identified in the same way, against whom to levy this additional charge.

In our own case the information supplied was largely incomplete, as it appears to have included details of ……….
……… I have brought this to the attention of the WBBS, accordingly. WBBS has, however, not commented on our clarification, but has instead chosen to continue to rely on the information supplied to it by yourselves in its rawest form.

My concern centres over the way in which data was requested of you for reasons other than those permitted under your four global business lines of:
1. Credit services (help manage the risks associated with extending credit and preventing fraud.);
2. Decision Analytics (help clients solve complex problems and make valuable business decisions);
3. Marketing Services (help clients better interact with their customers, and increase customer revenue and loyalty); and
4. Consumer Services (provide credit monitoring, fraud protection and identity management services).

Your website states very clearly: “The Group helps businesses to manage credit risk, prevent fraud, target marketing offers and automate decision making. Experian also helps individuals to check their credit report and credit score, and protect against identity theft”. On this basis I am far from clear as to the justification for your having supplied personal data to our existing mortgage lender, since it appears not to sit within any of the above criteria.

I would be grateful if you would provide me with the reasons that were given to you by the West Bromwich Building Society for the supply of personal information relating to myself and my wife, as we are extremely concerned that our rights under existing data protection legislation may have been breached.

I look forward to hearing from you as a matter of urgency.

Yours faithfully

I see our campaign is being mentioned over on the Motley fool website by posters.

It would be useful if other members could try and keep the topic at the top of the discussions by replying to posts on the subject.

There are two discussion forums, "Property Markets & Trends" is one of the most popular discussion forums on the entire Motley Fool website.

http://boards.fool.co.uk/property-markets-and-trends-51402.aspx

The second, "Property investing practical" is also very popular.

http://boards.fool.co.uk/property-investing-practical-50096.aspx

Note you cannot repeat exactly the same post on different forums, you have to change your post slightly I understand.

Thanks for letting us know Common Man, the Mötley Fool is an incredibly powerful website and honoured their members are discussing us there. I will pop over and add comments in the morning as its bedtime now. Thanks for the 'head up'

I have now had a very positive reply from my MP Mr Iain Wright. He has written to Mr Sajid Javid MP Financial Secretary to the Treasury on my behalf.

He has focussed on 2 specific points. The first being the WBBS decision to raise rates only for those they class as 'professional landlords'. He has written:

"WBBS plans to raise rates only for those they class as "professional landlords", which they have defined as meaning those with three or more buy-to-let mortgages. This applies to all buy-to-let mortgages and not just those with the WBBS, which I think raises legitimate questions about how this information was obtained. I have seen reports in the media that a credit reference agency was used, which may constitute a breach of data protection and I wopuld ask that you consider this".

His second point refers to the potential moral hazard whereby landlords may become reluctant to expand their portfolios because they lack information on how the lender will subsequently behave.

Every little helps I guess.