West Bromwich Building Society Tracker Margins Legal Action

Reply to the comment left by "Bob Nunn" at "20/11/2013 - 22:53":

Hi Bob

It is in the Mortgage Conditions booklet which we all signed to say we had received and read and understood. Whether or not we had actually received, read and understood it is another matter, the fact that we signed to say we did is all that a judge will be interested in. The mortgage deed makes very clear reference to the Mortgage Conditions booklet, right above where we signed. It is not possible for us the have the mortgage without having signed the mortgage deed document.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Dean " at "20/11/2013 - 23:01":

Thanks Dean, typo noted and amended, "able" changed to "unable".
,

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "20/11/2013 - 22:31":

Hi Mark, thanks for posting the initial concerns about the 'calling in of the mortgage'.

Initial thoughts before retiring for the day:

I) If 99% of all UK BTL/Main Residential mortgage borrowers (whether home owners, consumers, BTL landlords) are living with the 'Sword of Damocles' of having their mortgage called in by their lender if they chose to as and when they want, then so be it. However I have not known any lender on BTL or Main Residential to have the balls to do this. Working in the industry, the only clients I have known where the lender has attempted to call in the loan, is a true commercial loan (Not BTL per se with 1 loan per property) is when the initial loan term has expired, e.g. bullet 5 year loan, and the lenders are still talking/threatening crap 2 years after the end of the 5 year period. For clarity the clients 5 year commercial loan expired 2 years ago and the lender is still pretending to threaten repossession 2 years later (75% current LTV) and the client is still offering exit solutions even though he stopped paying the mortgage 6 months ago,

This is clearly the Worse Case scenario and if WBBS attempt to do this, then they have entered the last chance saloon and they can clearly forget about lending being any part of their future business model.

2) Once the UK mortgage population understand that their own mortgage (with or without perceived consumer protection) could invoke the same worse case scenario, then the WBBS will have destroyed any trust anyone has in banks, BS and lenders. If WBBS feel that confident to call loans in, then let them destroy public trust in mortgages and let the Govt intervene. There is no way WBBS have the balls to do this.

3) Rightly what you have highlighted as an area for further thought is important, I genuinely believe that if a lender has a suicide note and does not wish to ever lend again, could possibly TRY IT ON, but WBBS will not succeed or get away with spitting their dummy out.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "20/11/2013 - 22:31":

The FCA are not bothered because we do not stand to lose the roof over our head but we would be putting tenants out on the street if they called the loan in within 28 days.
I think it is time to read the legal cover on my insurance docs.

Reply to the comment left by "Sara Landlord" at "20/11/2013 - 21:37":

Hi Sara

Welcome!

You have joined at a very interesting stage.

To answer your questions .......

1) We will obtain insurance against the other sides costs in the event of losing before we proceed. That's half of the reason we need to raise so much money. This is all confirmed in the main article at the top of this thread.

2) £240 per affected case is the basis which was deemed to be a fair reflection of contributions pro-rata to the benefit of a win. I do understand your point as one could equally argue, "why pay anything, I'll leave it to everybody else". However, if nobody pays nobody wins. If we all paid just £240 we would need a lot more people to participate too which would make it far more difficult to reach our targets and get the case into Court. Note that some of us have declared we are prepared to pay a LOT more if necessary. £240 is a tiny fraction of what we will save on each mortgage account if/when we win this case. The most important point though is that we will be named borrowers fighting a single case based on listed account numbers. It seems West Brom can do pretty much what they want to us as individuals, a great example of which is that they are not applying the increase to all accounts. If we win, there is a very good chance they will only revert to the correct level of charging for the named borrowers / numbered accounts which are party to the Class Action case. There is no guarantee they will simply reverse their decision for all accounts, that's not the way litigation works, even though I suspect many of the fence sitters are hoping that is is. If one case affected everybody then why is it that every person who was mis-sold PPI didn't just get a refund without having to apply?

What a win will do for us all is to discourage other lenders from following suit as they will realise they can't win. Also, the threat of litigation if lenders do try it on will hang over them for years. A win will certainly make it MUCH easier for other borrowers to make claims if they need to. If other lenders do try it on we will see a lot more lawyers getting trained up to do what Justin does that's for sure! However, making individual claims, if it comes to that, may well cost significantly more than £240 per claim as part of a Class Action, especially now that insurance premiums protecting against the other sides legal costs in the event of losing can't be re-claimed by "no win no fee" lawyers.

If you really want to hedge you bets, pay for just one account. However, if/when we win, and I'm still absolutely convinced we will by the way, you may then have to pay a lot more than £240 per account to fight for West Brom to charge the right amount on your other accounts too.

If you have been following the forum today you will see that we have had a bit of a set-back. However, I am confident that given a bit more time our legal Counsel will address that because there are comparable cases where issues like those I have raised have previously been overcome.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "20/11/2013 - 22:31":

Hi Mark.

To provide some sense of perspective for paid up members (affected or kind paid up interested parties), it would be more than useful to understand the initial thoughts Justin had in respect of the significance of T&C 15 and 15.1 before the latest Barristers observation of this specific T&C ?

As and when you can, please can you kindly ask what Justins' initial thoughts were to this section/part of the T&C's before the barrister made his initial comments on the top line of the overall case.

Thanks, Stuart

Let them try it! It would be rediculous. Yes potentially devostating to us as landlords, and more importantly to our tennants. They would have no credibility left when we had finished with them. Is this site being a bit too hasty with breaking legal news? Mark, I understandand respect your intentions of keeping us informed, but don't spread unnecessary alarm before the dust settles. I will be interested to hear what Justin says, and I have only just joined the forum. All take a deap breath and refocus.

Reply to the comment left by "stuart marshall" at "20/11/2013 - 23:11":

Hi Stuart

I agree with a lot of what you have said, however, please read my post again.

"The sword of Damocles" as you so eloquently put is not hanging over the head of every mortgage borrower in the UK unless they are in default. It is, however, hanging over the heads of all borrowers affected by the West Brom rate hike due to Mortgage Condition 15 and 15.1

One train of thought I've had is that if West Brom continue to threaten the use of that sword to force through this injustice, or through sheer spite if they lose or feel the case is heading that way for them, whether they could in fact be creating a criminal offence, e.g. extortion through menace. God help us if we also need to find a criminal law barrister to advise us but that's my certainly one of my retiring thoughts for the night.

My worry isn't so much a possession hearing if they give 28 days notice to call in mortgages, it's whether they might appoint an LPA receiver to collect rents and dispose of the property on day 29 or worse still issue a statutory demand. I TOTALLY agree with your point about the knock on implications for trust in banks. However, public opinion isn't of the side of landlords so I also have a vision of the flip side to that scenario too and it isn't pretty. Some idiots would be cheering if landlords were to lose their property portfolios.

A few people have pointed out the plight of tenants if West Brom do decide to go down this route and that's certainly going to be a more popular PR angle if we find need one. I just pray it doesn't come down to that because the havoc it would cause would be horrendous. The financial consequences might be recoverable must the emotional issues for both landlords and displaced tenants would not be capable of being reversed after the event, regardless of whether we do eventually win the case.

It's scary times but we must fight on in my opinion.

12,200 BoI borrowers are also banking on us winning this fight too, how many more thousands will be affected if we don't press on is anybody's guess.
.

Perhaps someone can advise? - Surely condition 15 and 15.1 (28 day call in of the loan) completely contradicts the purpose of a BTL mortgage. How can it be possible for a BTL lender to offer mortgages with conditions that are completely unsuitable for BTL, as to call in the loan would be impossible as vacant possession could not be provided due to the right of the tenant to remain within the property under the terms of his/her AST agreement or contract?
It would appear that these 'conditions' are suitable only for residential mortgages and not fit for the purpose of BTL?

Reply to the comment left by "stuart marshall" at "20/11/2013 - 23:53":

Hi Stuart

Good question. I suspect Justin did what we all did and read what's there, much the same as all of our conveyancing solicitors would have done, and never thought much of it. As I previously explain, there is nothing unusual about a condition giving a mortgage lender the right to call in a loan within 28 days. The difference in these conditions isn't what's written, it is what is missing, i.e. the basis upon which the 28 day notice to call in the mortgage can be applied. The barrister has managed to do something which none of us, nor any of our professional advisers, have managed to do which is to spot the omission. It's obvious now we know about it but "what seems obvious is not always apparent". That's why we need clever people like barristers. What we need him to do now is find a remedy which may not be apparent right now but will be obvious when he finds it.

OMG this is getting deep!
.