West Bromwich Building Society Tracker Margins Legal Action

Thanks to Mark and Justin for this work, but having read Justin's letter I would appreciate some clarification on a couple of points:

Justin estimates a cost of £15,000 for steps 1-4
He requests £240 per loan for steps 1-4
I understand 400 have signed up specifically re West Brom, so assuming only one loan (ie £240) per person (and many have more), that equals a potential pot of a minimum of £96,000 for steps 1-4 - far in excess of what is estimated.
If each of the 400 paid one single amount of £100 (as originally estimated) that is still £40,000, which more than covers the estimated cost of steps 1-4.
So, I'm not really clear on why so much is needed now? Also, I don't understand why the amount is on a per-loan rather than per-person basis, as the principle and effort expended look like they are the same regardless.

I'm not unappreciative of the excellent and supportive work being done by Justin, but I would like to understand these points, as it is actually quite a lot of money being asked now (if you have several loans).

A campaign against the CoOp's plan to write off retail Bondholders investments in the CoOp is being run by a chap called Mark Taber.

He sucessfully ran a campaign against the Bank Of Ireland who also tried to force BOI retail bond holders, he won this campaign and the bonds still exist.

I think we can all learn a lot from how Mark runs his campaign and I would urge you all to read his website.

http://www.fixedincomeinvestments.org.uk/home/co-op-bank-retail-investors-campaign

If you look at the list of his media coverage it is extremely impressive.

The campaign is also discussed in minute detail on The Motley Fool banking board which is also useful to see what tactics are being employed against CoOp by camaign members and leaders.

http://boards.fool.co.uk/banking-sector-50033.aspx

One major lesson is to lobby extensivley every, and all contacts we all have, including all of our MP's. Much of this is political and the TSC will take an interest. Lobbying your local MP is very important and I think a template letter to MP's should be drafted.

If people could also gather as many media contacts as possible, it may be worth sending them to Mark Alexander of Property 118 so he can compile a comprehensive list and then update them on our progress on an ongoing basis. Individualls can then back this up as well with their own letters.

Apologies to Mark Alexander if my suggestion is giving you more work or unwelcome, but this has worked well on the CoOp campaign.

I am contributing to the fund and would urge everybody else to as well.

Reply to the comment left by "Richard Adams" at "02/10/2013 - 17:52":

Hi Richard

Answers as follows:-

1) Yes I may well have grossly under-estimated costs and I posted the same a few days ago. Hopefully the case will be won or WBBS will back down at an early stage and then £240 will have been an excellent investment. If this goes all the way it may end up costing us over £1,000 each but that's still small beer in terms of what we are fighting for.

2) Hard to say, if WBBS back track at the 11th hour then the cheapskates will be jumping for joy. However, I suspect WBBS are relying on the vast majority just bending over and taking what comes to them. Only time will tell but if we do get to full on group litigation then everybody will need to be named. Let's hope it doesn't get that far, otherwise this thread will still be running this time next year and I'm not sure I can handle that as I'm working 24/7 on this unpaid.

3) I haven't seen the papers from Justin yet but I suspect we will sue for X times the monthly increase announced for a period which equates to just under the small claims limit. I'm guessing at this one. I have no idea whether we would claim now or whether we will have to wait until December when the first payment is taken. Given that we would be claiming losses to be incurred logic tells me we could claim now but I may be wrong.

I would ask anybody who feels they owe me a debt of gratitude to become a sponsor of The GOOD Landlords Campaign, either by editing their member profile and clicking the blue bar at the bottom or joining The GOOD Landlords Campaign if they haven't already got a basic member profile.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Andy Bell" at "02/10/2013 - 16:16":

Agreed, I would add:

1) The wording in the terms and conditions clause 14 allowing them to change the interest rate, must have surely only been for standard variable rate mortgages.

2) My offer letter also has wording in it to the effect, any additional terms in this letter overide the standard terms and conditions, thus as you say, the repeated mention of the 0.59% base rate tracking is a substantial term and therefore trumps the standard terms and conditions.

3) Definition of a Consumer. If you recieve the majority of your net annual income from sources other than buy to let properites, ie you have a job that pays you more than your net BTL profit, irrespective of the number of BTL mortgages you have, I would have assumed the courts would infer BTL is "not your business" - your employment is your business.

Conversley, if I only had 1 BTL mortgage but it made me a profit of £75,000 pa and I had no other job, you could assume, it was my business and I was not a consumer landlord.

However this is tricky, when is this judgement made ?
When you took the mortgage out ?
Or are West Brom trying to make the judgment whether we are a "consumer" now ?

Reply to the comment left by "Maxwell " at "02/10/2013 - 18:06":

Very fair points.

First, we need to be certain that we can cover the initial costs, the £40 is to cover VAT.

Second, all money will be held in Justin's client account until such time as costs are invoiced.

Third, we need to build up a fighting fund. If 1,000 people instruct it is highly unlikely that there will be a further call for funds. If only 100 people instruct we will have a far better idea of what needs to be done, if anything.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Darrell C" at "02/10/2013 - 18:06":

Correct, please see my response to Maxwell.
.

Value for money.
We have 2 mortgages with West Bromwich and the proposed increases would cost us c £4,000pa.
We have 6 other BTL mortgages, and if those lenders see West Bromwich get away with this, they could increase rates costing us a potential further c £12,000pa.
So it's a "no brainer" to invest 2 x £240 in the fighting fund.
We should all show solidarity and stump up £240 per property, because the alternatives are not worth contemplating.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "02/10/2013 - 18:33":

Are you sure that it shouldn't be £24 rather than £240?

Reply to the comment left by "Alexander Law" at "02/10/2013 - 18:50":

Well said Alexander, I'd still be in if if cost me a few years savings. What's the alternative, sell up? Bottom line for me is that what I will be doing if this all goes the wrong way but I doubt that will happen unless there are a lot more free-loaders unwilling to take the plunge than I can possibly imagine.

I do sincerely hope that when we get started we will easily get 1,000 landlords who pay up. If we don't the PRS and the free-loaders deserves to be doomed.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Seething Landlord" at "02/10/2013 - 18:58":

Absolutely 100% certain.
.