West Bromwich Building Society Tracker Margins Legal Action

Reply to the comment left by "Chris Novice Shark Bait" at "20/11/2013 - 23:54":

I needed to say something Chris because those of us who have paid up are expecting to receive templates for our complaints to FOS tomorrow and also a template letter to send to our solicitors for those of us who had one representing us. It would have been a bit weak of me just to say "sorry guys, something has come up so don't expect to hear anuthing from Justin for a week or two". I'd have been asked a million questions. Also, I don't think it would have been fair for me to keep this secret. I would much prefer to be open and honest with everybody with all news, whether it is good news or bad news. That's why this thread is so popular I think.

This is a set back, possibly even a flesh wound but I certainly don't think we have suffered a fatal blow.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Matthew " at "21/11/2013 - 00:23":

Hi Matthew

These conditions could never be suitable for a domestic mortgage as they would be thrown out under terms in consumer contracts under the UTTCR regulations 1999.

I agree that a landlord could not evict a tenant in that time but he could pay off the mortgage if he had the money. I appreciate your efforts but we are going to need our barristers to come up with a far more robust argument.
.

It takes a lot to keep me up at night!!! Do we know whether the mortgages provided by brokers and starting with one figure and the ones supplied by WBBS directly and starting with another figure all have the same clause 15 and 15.1?

I understand that members of 118 have access to some of the mortgages supplied directly. If there is a difference in the terms and conditions then I think that it would be helpful if Justin or the Barrister could comment on whether this constitutes deception and whether the use of them by wbbs amounts to blackmail.

I completely agree with Mark's comments that brokers and solicitors should not be targeted with negligence claims at the moment. It would be far better if members of 118 who had good relationships with their brokers and lawyers could get statements from them supporting our views and confirming that these clauses were never drawn to their attention despite them being "unusual" to say the least.

Most of the contracts I read are leases. However, my understand is that if there is something in a lease that could be interpreted to the detriment of either the lessee or the lessor it is the obligation of the relevant solicitor to point it out and obtain confirmation from his client (in writing if he has any sense) that he understands all the implications. If he does not obtain such confirmation or cannot prove that he has drawn the client's attention to the problem he could face a negligence claim.

Reply to the comment left by "Annette Stone" at "21/11/2013 - 00:55":

Hi Annette

Glad to see I'm not the only one burning the midnight oils!

I am going to have to call it a day after this post, otherwise my wife will probably find me asleep on the couch, draped over my laptop in a few hours time!

Initial signs are that the mortgage conditions will all be identical whether the account number starts with a number 8 or a number 9. Those beginning with 8 are apparently with West Brom Mortgage Company Ltd. and those beginning with a 9 are with West Bromwich Building Society. We have yet to verify this.
.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "21/11/2013 - 00:42":

Mark, and everyone else talking about the threat WBBS have given to call in the loan in 28 days. I think it's just sabre rattling!
As I have discussed with my wife, threatening borrowers of BTL mortgages with a 28-day recall, is like serving a Section 8 on a model tenant; and what would happen is the landlord would have great difficulty, if no possibility, of evicting a tenant mid-term unless they have been in some way been badly behaved, upsetting neighbours etc., or 2 months or more behind on their rent. However, if they've done nothing wrong, then trying to get a magistrate to agree to grant possession is just fanciful.
Well it's the same here, I believe. WBBS would need to first go to court, for if you've been paying the mortgage regularly and on time, then you've in no way defaulted or broken your agreement with the lender, and a judge would have a hard time with his or her conscience to grant possession in that frame of time. It'd be considered 'unreasonable', so unenforceable. Besides, I don't believe these T&Cs were written for BTL mortgages specifically, as they must KNOW that landlords have to give 2 month's notice anyway, and at timed for the END of the current tenancy, not on a whim! So how, legally, they even THINK they can enforce such a 'right' is way beyond reasonable.
I'm not concerned about them doing this, for all these reasons, and they know it can't be done without a hell of legal battle on their hands. They are living in cuckoo land! This is laughable, it really is, whether or not this IS in the T&Cs. It's just chest thumping nonsense and we ought not feel intimidated by it. This is just bullying, and I'm having none of it! (he says, middle finger having taken its rightful position ;).

Payment to join as a member of the West Bromwich Building Society legal action group made to The Law Deparment.

A couple of years ago I tried to take on the Skipton Building Society myself when they reneged on their SVR pledge to never raise their SVR 3% above Base Rate. They cited "exceptional circumstances" in a clause hidden away in the small print. Back then it cost me a few thousand pounds (which I could ill afford) to obtain a barristers opinion in order to pursue a legal action which ultimately I couldn't fund as I was not able to secure After The Event insurance to provide me with security for costs if I lost. However, just knowing that I did everything I could to fight the injustice perpetrated by Skipton made me feel infinitely better than I would have if I had just allowed Skipton to trample over me the way they did to so many others who didn't put up a fight. Even though I lost that battle I was still able to walk with my head held high. Money comes and money goes. What matters is whether you're prepared to take a stand for what is right? Whether you are prepared to do all that you can in life to fight injustice?

Fiat justitia ruat caelum (Let justice be done though the heavens fall)

I would urge all of you that are still thinking about contributing to get off the fence. A few hundred pounds in the grand scheme of things is neither here nor there but a chance to bloody the noses of these titans of Wall Street; these so called masters of the universe who think that they can operate with impunity, well, you just can't put a price on that!

Don't make me do a Braveheart-esque rousing speech to make you all contribute and help fight the good fight.

The Man From Nowhere

Reply to the comment left by "The Man From Nowhere" at "21/11/2013 - 02:16":

Welcome to Property118 and thank you for the long emails to Justin last night which you very kindly copied me into. Your barristers opinions regarding the Skipton case may well prove useful, if not for this case but for Justin after this case in won. As you will be aware if you have read this entire thread, once we have won the case against West Brom we believe we will have the credibility to raise the required funding to go after the Skipton BS, Bank of Ireland and the Manchester BS to right the wrongs they have done in the past.

Just one question, why do you prefer to post under a pseudonym? I can obviously vouch for you that you are a real person but it can make other members suspicious. Rest assured, I will not reveal your identity but should you choose to do so, it is very easy for you to update your Member Profile and doing so will backdate any previous posts with any changes you make. My personal preference is for all members to post under their own names and add a picture but I do respect the fact that not everybody likes that, hence I have left it so that people have the choice.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Incensed Landlord" at "21/11/2013 - 01:16":

Good morning

As you can probably gather, I had very little sleep last night.

It may be coincidence but the conclusion you have arrived at is the same one I arrived at on 03/10/2013 at 12:41 and the words you have used are almost identical to mine - see page 22 of this thread - direct link to comment http://www.property118.com/west-bromwich-building-society-mortgage-company-increase-tracker-margins-legal-action/43657/comment-page-22/#comment-29421

Back in October when I wrote that post I had clearly underestimated our enemy and the depths they would stoop to. It had not occurred to me that their right to call in the mortgage would be any different to the rights of any other BTL mortgage lender. It had also not occurred to me that other commercial borrowers would have been treated any differently to those of who who had received notification of the increase. I believed, and still do, that the FCA principles of "treating customers fairly" applied to all borrowers, whether they are classified by regulation as consumers or not.
Therefore, I paid little regard to the threat of calling in the mortgage.

With the benefit of the advice from our barristers and other knowledge I have picked up along the way I now realise that West Brom may not require a possession order. They may simply be able to serve notice and follow that up with a statutory demand or appoint an LPA receiver to collect rents and dispose of the property on the basis that if I do not repay the West Brom mortgage within 28 days of them calling it in I would technically be in default based on their mortgage conditions. In fairness, Anon did elude to this in one of his posts.

I now need to bring this to a head as the time I've been investing into this matter is beginning to impact my personal life. I am, therefore considering the following:-

1) Deadline - I plan to discuss a deadline with Justin whereby all people who join the Class action after a certain date will need to pay £500 per property they wish to register and will need to agree to any surplus funds £260 after the case being disbursed pro-rata to the people who committed financially to the Class Action prior to the cut off date. We have all put so much effort and faith into this cause and it does not seem right for others to simply pay their fees and get exactly the same benefits at the 11th hour. I don't know whether this is legal but it is certainly logical so I will float the idea past Justin.

2) Message to West Brom - at 03/10/2013 – 20:20 on page 26 of this thread I said "If you think you can call in a mortgage and enforce that through the Courts then try it on me. My mortgage account number with you is 800823623, It is standard warfare tactics to take out the Generals so come on, give it a try! Your letters will not frighten me, a Court summons will not frighten me, the PR will help me. So come on West Brom BS, shall we dance?" I am still keen to bring this matter to a head and as I know now that West Brom employees are reading this thread but may not have been at the time when I first wrote the above words I have repeated them. I do not personally fear the consequences of doing so as my desire to see this matter dealt with by far exceeds my fears of a negative outcome. I also want to demonstrate my faith in the principles of our fight and if that requires me to become a Martyr to the cause then so be it. Paying off my West Brom mortgage will still be significantly less than I would have had to spend to fight this battle through the Courts all on my own. Please do not get the impression I will simply write out a cheque to pay off my mortgage if they do call it in either. I will fight them every step of the way if only to raise further awareness of the ethics or the West Brom Building Society, or should I say lack of them. I don't think I'm taking a massive risk either because I am confident that we will win the case eventually and I will recover any damages at that time. I am also wondering whether I might be able to claim loss of earnings based on my standard Consultancy rate of £150 per hour for the time I have invested into this fight. If I can I will be ever so grateful to West Brom as they will be paying more to me in compensation than I actually owe them LOL
.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "21/11/2013 - 08:36":

I have great respect for this forum and what it stands for, but I fear we may be washing our dirties in the open!

As to WB repossessing in 28 days - I'd argue that this is a scare tactic specifically coordinated by WB and some have fallen for it.

Even if we put aside the avalanche of hostility and impracticality of it all - there is the initial huge financial cost to WB, which I am not sure they can bear at this stage.

Come off it folks, playing around with tracker definition is one thing but displacing a large number of tenants (consumers) quite another - public and press might not like landlords but they will surely get behind the tenants.

And finally, WB knows very well that having sold off the properties, if they are found guilty by FOS or FCA then they not only have to pay hefty compensation to us but also to the authorities as they are effectively bringing the industry to disrepute. At the first sign of this FOS will have no choice but to get the matter moved on their fast track.

In my opinion its all bluff, but Mark is right that we should have a strategy in place, but perhaps not on a public domain.

Reply to the comment left by "Concerned Landlord" at "21/11/2013 - 08:55":

Mark and all.

Like many have already voiced, I am personally ready to double or triple my cash input for legal fees (2x £240 already paid) to get things moving with legal action.

Like you, I have lost more in lost income with the time already spent on this saga so it would actually save me money by injecting more cash to get a Start from legal action.