West Bromwich Building Society Tracker Margins Legal Action

Reply to the comment left by "stuart marshall" at "02/10/2013 - 12:05":

Hi Stuart

That may be a very important piece of evidence, are you able to scan and email me a copy of your mortgage documentation please? mark@property118.com
.

Reply to the comment left by "Maxwell " at "02/10/2013 - 12:11":

I have a total of 4 with West Brom, all remortgages. All came with two financial incentives - No Valuation Fee and Free Legals. Enact Conveyancers of Leeds did the legal work on each of them. This was all done by post.

Enact were the "solicitors of the Company's choosing" (West Brom's words on the Mortgage Offer). It seems it will be difficult for West Brom to hide behind the "your solicitor should have advised you" line when they appointed them and no doubt paid them a low fee for a basic service.

Reply to the comment left by "Richard Watters" at "02/10/2013 - 12:56":

Richard, please scan and email me the mortgage documentation - mark@property118.com

It will only be read by myself and Justin Selig and his legal team.
.

Reply to the comment left by "stuart marshall" at "02/10/2013 - 11:27":

I also inferred that the FCA did have prior knowledge despite her refusal to confirm whether this was the case. This is the obvious conclusion to draw from her statement “We deal with such cases on a case by case basis. Our response to the West Bromwich’s change does not mean there will be leniency for others."

What is not clear is whether their response to WBBS was (a) that their action was legitimate (unlikely as they would have no knowledge of individual circumstances and would surely be aware of the multiplicity of legal issues to be decided before such a judgement could be given) or (b) that under their present remit the FCA would not get involved in cases involving landlords with multiple BTL mortgages.

(b) seems to be consistent with her further remarks:

“This is an issue in the industry in regards to the changing of terms and we will look into it.

“We intend to asses if the rules are suitable and we will look to change our remit should things be outside it that need addressing.

“The FCA recognises the problem.”

The best outcome would be for the FCA to mount a general challenge as in the OFT v Foxtons case which if successful would have retrospective effect, but would potentially only benefit those who could establish that they were "consumers". As has been previously pointed out by others, the judgement in that case is silent on the supposed distinction between different categories of landlord, even though I assume that many of Foxtons' clients would have fallen into the WBBS category of professional landlords. I cannot see any reference to the question of how many (or how few) properties must be owned before the landlord ceases to be a consumer for the purposes of the regulations [Regulation 3 of UTCCR (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999) says that a consumer is any 'natural person …acting for purposes outside his trade, business or profession']. The issue therefore seems to be whether owning rental properties is a "trade, business or profession".

Reply to the comment left by "Seething Landlord" at "02/10/2013 - 13:36":

I'm sorry but from what I am taking from the comments from many people is that they are happy to help themselves and not everyone. What I mean by that is.......

I only have one property and am not a "professional landlord" therefore I shouldn't be penalised.

I will be considered a professional landlord but we are either in this to fight for everyone or I'm not in at all as I am currently looking to off load the properties. I may be reading too much into some of the comments right now. There is obviously a lot of anger out there and rightly so but as I said this will trickle through to everyone (whether you're a professional landlord or not) eventually if it is allowed to happen.

Once Mark has had legal advice I'm sure there will be a document stating the stance of the litigation. At that point we will have a better view.

I have complained to the West Brom about both mortgages, sent copies to the Ombudsman and will follow it up with a formal complaint if the answer is not satisfactory.

Good luck all.

Reply to the comment left by "Neil Gallagher" at "02/10/2013 - 13:45":

I agree. Self-interest is natural (I have multiple mortgages including 4 with West Brom so if a deal was done for "amateur" landlords that wouldn't help me!).
HOWEVER, the argument shouldn't be about amateur or professional but about the fact that West Brom have acted illegally. If they get away with it, it gives ALL Banks carte blanche to screw whoever they please, whenever they please.

Reply to the comment left by "Richard Watters" at "02/10/2013 - 12:56":

Richard it sounds like you signed into exactly the same deal we did. Having just moved office, I can't lay my hands immediately on the paperwork (currently everything except active projects is in boxes) so it's good to have the detail confirmed. Will be very interested to get Justin's feedback on your documentation.

Hello again. Excuse me for being a little slow in these matters, but I have been back through the files for our 2 WBBS buy-to-let mortgages.
In June 2009 we were offered the opportunity to revert back to our original tracker mortgages, which offers we accepted:
"Moving back to your original tracker product, backdated to the time when you initially switched to your current fixed rate product................Please note that your original product does not have a product floor linked to the Bank Base Rate"
In July 2009 we received the following in a letter from Sarah Chinn (MS Administration Contact Handler) for West Bromwich:
"Thank you for returning your mortgage offer to switch to a new mortgage product.
The whole of your mortgage has been transferred to your original BTL Tracker - Bank Base Rate + 0.99% for life......."

So, does there unilateral decision to add 2% to our repayments represent a breach of contract?

Reply to the comment left by "Seething Landlord" at "02/10/2013 - 13:36":

I TOTALLY concur, very well said 🙂
.

Received a reply to the official complaint in record time (I honestly feel that they were already composed and ready to send). Basically tough luck, by the way let us point out Section 14 on the T&C (we can give you one months notice and request that you repay the mortgage at anytime).

All of this has been anticipated by the people at WBBS who have gone over the various possibilities many times prior to the initial letters being sent.
In many ways it feels like the whole industry is testing the water with this case, I think we are like shipwreck survivors bobbing around in the ocean whilst been circled by sharks waiting for any sign of weakness.

The FCA, FOS, OFT, ICO & Government are not interested whether it's illegal, immoral, or just plain bad for the UK (not our problem Guv). The only way to fight this is through massive publicity/complaints a court case and preferably involving the European Courts.

In an economy trying to recover from recession this is greed and madness to the extreme. So even if you’re not affected by the WBBS/BOI increases please consider this, if these changes are actioned uncontested, then every other lender of whatever money will have their legal people scouring your contracts in order to do something similar. This is the thin end of a very frightening wedge.

Whether you’re affected by the WBBS/BOI, like it or not, you will be affected by what's happening here.