West Bromwich Building Society Tracker Margins Legal Action

Reply to the comment left by "The Man From Nowhere" at "25/11/2013 - 23:34":

If you keep posting like this I might end up paying for extra mortgages just in case !!!

Reply to the comment left by "Ian Burton" at "25/11/2013 - 23:34":

Ian. Remember we are asking people to be honest so we can try and persuade them to join. I know it's frustrating but everyone as to make up their own mind .

If people read the postings of the man from nowhere they will be able to make an informed choice.

Reply to the comment left by "Dean " at "25/11/2013 - 23:41":

Dean I have already paid £1440 for six affected West Bromwich mortgage and I am going to phone the West Bromwich Building Society tomorrow to find out if my remaining two West Bromwich mortgages are affected by the tracker rate hike. If they are affected, I will be paying an additional £240 for each of those mortgages. If mortgage account numbers are relevant in a settlement/judgement/Part 36 offer, then I would want the benefit of any settlement, judgement or Part 36 offer to cover all the affected mortgages and not just one or two of them simply because I was too much of a cheapskate to pay into the fighting fund that which was fair and just. It has been agreed that £240 PER MORTGAGE is the amount you need to pay into the fund to be part of the class action and I consider that to be a reasonable sum given what is at stake.

For all those still sitting on the fence debating whether to contribute £240 per mortgage to the class action and in doing so, join the fight against a grave injustice, I would like you all to bear the following proverb in mind.

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

Oh blimey, I wasn't aware of the information below (article copied and pasted) regarding Part 36 Offers. (My civil litigation knowledge is rustier than I thought! It looks like there's even more of an incentive for claimants and defendants to settle these days and avoid litigation). To those still sitting on the fence, you may want to rethink your strategy. My prediction? IF we raise the necessary funds to commence litigation, the likely outcome will be a settlement as a result of a Part 36 offer made either by us or the WBBS.

================================================================

New - 10% additional damages if offers to settle are refused

Summary

From 1 April 2013 a new sanction against defendants (or reward for claimants) will apply where it can be shown that the defendants should have accepted an offer to settle made by claimants. New rules will come into force to discourage litigation going to Court and to put pressure on defendants to seriously consider claimants' offers to settle or else risk potential financial penalties of up to £75,000.

The New Law

From 1 April 2013, under the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO), Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) will be changed to equalise the incentives between claimants and defendants to make and accept reasonable offers. A new reward/sanction will be introduced, to be paid by defendants who fail to accept a claimant's reasonable offer that is not matched or beaten at trial as follows:

* on money claims and claims involving a monetary element - the reward will be calculated as 10% of the amount awarded up to £500,000, with 5% of the award between £500,001 and £1,000,000, with an overall cap of £75,000;

* on non-money claims - the reward will be based on costs ordered to be paid to the claimant, but otherwise with the same approach and cap as on money claims.

Comment

Offers to settle can have serious consequences. If a claimant makes an offer to settle but the defendant refuses to accept, then from 1 April there are new financial penalties. These changes are in addition to the existing sanctions under Part 36 and will require practitioners to review Part 36 offers even more carefully and with very different considerations depending upon which side of the claim you sit:

For claimants - the tactical use of Part 36 Offers should be further encouraged to obtain the benefits of these changes and apply increased pressure upon the Defendant to accept a reasonable settlement offer at an early stage;

For defendants - Part 36 offers from a claimant must be reviewed with even more caution and evaluated early on, particularly taking into account the additional liability that the defendant may face if a reasonable offer to settle is refused.

Explanation

If a defendant makes an offer to settle then the claimant needs to decide if he is going to accept. If the claimant does not accept and it turns out that he should have accepted (because the trial outcome gives him less that the defendants offer to settle), then the Claimant might have to pay his own costs and the defendants costs from when the offer to settle was made even though the claimant was successful and the outcome of the trial was that the defendant was liable.
Litigation costs can be high and the chance of having to pay both sides' costs is a very significant risk for claimants. A defendant's offer to settle is, therefore, a powerful weapon.
However if a defendant refuses to accept a reasonable offer made by the claimant, the claimant will have to continue its claim and incur costs even though it is not at fault.
If a claimant makes an offer to settle, then the defendant needs to decide if he is going to accept. If the defendant does not accept and it turns out he should have accepted the claimants offer, then the defendant might have to pay his own costs and the claimants costs from when the offer to settle was made, but this is fair because the defendant has lost and the usual rule is that the loser pays the total costs anyway.
New rules as part of various court reforms have been introduced to penalise defendants who fail to accept reasonable claimant's offers to settle.

Example

A claimant claims £250,000 damages in June 2013. In August 2013 the claimant says it will accept £100,000 plus the claimant's costs to that date of £20,000. This offer is made "without prejudice save as to costs" (under CPR Part 36) so that it can be brought to the attention of the Court after the trial in respect of the reasonable conduct and liability for costs. The defendant refuses and the trial takes place in December 2013 with the result that the defendant is ordered to pay £150,000 in damages (£50,000 more than the claimant's offer to settle). The claimant will argue that the defendant should have accepted his offer of £100,000 made in August. As the defendant has failed to better the claimant's Part 36 offer of £100,000 at trial, the existing rules mean that the defendant could be liable to pay the claimant's costs as well as his own costs from when he failed to accept the claimant's offer. The new rules will also mean that the defendant will have to pay an extra penalty of 10% of the damages awarded of £15,000.

The following table illustrates this example:

Defendant's Position if Claimant's Offer Accepted
Offer sum £100,000.00
Claimant's costs to August £20,000.00
Defendant's costs to August £20,000.00

Total: £140,000.00

Defendant's Position if Claimant's Offer is Refused

Damages £150,000.00
New penalty (10% of damages) £15,000.00
Claimant's costs to August £20,000.00
Claimant's costs to December £50,000.00
Defendant's costs to August £20,000.00
Defendant's costs to December £50,000.00

Total: £305,000.00

Conclusion - The defendant will bear additional costs of £165,000 including a £15,000 penalty because the claimant's offer was refused.

Reply to the comment left by "Scotty Lifetracker" at "25/11/2013 - 23:06":

Scotty
Thanks for your reply and info.
Yes, if Justin can confirm that mortgagors with property in Scotland are able to join in the action then I most certainly will.
However the situation is slightly confused - the booklet I received on taking out the mortgage is a Scottish version which says under Governing Law 'you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Scottish Courts'. When WB copied me the documentation on receiving my complaint they included an English version which says' This agreement is governed by, and shall be construed in accordance with, English Law'. Oops, not sure what to make of this but it may seem to confirm that their administration is struggling to cope.

Reply to the comment left by "The Man From Nowhere" at "25/11/2013 - 23:20":

Correction to my earlier post of 25/11/2013 at 23:20.

A Part 36 offer to settle can be made by both a claimant and a defendant in a dispute, AT ANY STAGE OF A DISPUTE BEFORE OR AFTER proceedings have commenced and in appeal proceedings.

Part 36 offers to settle can be made PRIOR to the commencement of court proceedings.

As well as Part 36 Offers, claimants and defendants can also make a 'Calderbank' offer. A Calderbank offer is written 'without prejudice save as to costs'. The offer is not referred to during the course of proceedings dealing with the claim but can be shown to the court when looking at the question of costs. The court will then decide the appropriate weight to give to the offer.

Mark
Here's a letter I have drafted to My MP (Edward Timpson) There was a comment that I wanted to include but am damned if I can find it is there a search facility or perhaps a method of downloading the whole blog so I can search it off line. Please feel free to comment on the letter and or copy it .
Dean in reply I understand we are trying to encourage people to be open BUT we MUST warn them of the risk of names closing the option and asking for more specifically to make the names money. This I'm afraid cannot be said gently essentially don't pay no benefits if we win!

Dear Edward

A quote from the Telegraph
Andrew Tyrie, chairman of the Treasury Committee, said the reports revealed “a fundamental cultural problem with RBS’s lending to

and treatment of SMEs”.

It is interesting that the government is now prepared to make comments and look into the fact that the RBS was accused of trying to put

small businesses out of business in order to buy/sell the properties of the SBE's in order to make more profit.

However when Mr Tyrie was informed of the West Bromwich Mortgage Society (a wholely owend subsiduary of the West Bromwich

Building Society) attempting to do the same by raising the interest rates on a Bank of England Base rate for ONLY businesses (their terms

not mine) and small businesses (more than 3 properties) in order to get round consumer protection. This is a reply from the treasury (not to me as of yet as the Treasury has not replied to your letter on my behalf) to one of the contributors to Property118.com a forum set up specifically to air and help the fight against the WBBS.

"Letter arrived from HM Treasury in reply to the one I sent over a month ago to George Osborne.

Basically says they don’t intervene in these decisions and the pricing of loans remain commercial decisions for lenders etc etc which has completely missed the point – Its the contract entered into that has been changed! "

As you can see there is no sympathy at all as this is purely a business matter (As was the RBS until the government was embarassed into taking action even if only to make the above statement.)

Could you please help or investigate or whatever you can do.

I know this is not YET exactly the same situation but its getting there very fast and WILL put some profitable SME's out of business just so

the WBBS can profit, much like the RBS I'd argue. (Just read in the forum for examples of this, if you do not have the time or facilities I

will ask for the permission of the relevant SME's to publish their details to you if you wish)

Kind Regards

Ian Burton
My Address and Phone No (as there is no reply or action without this info here)

Reply to the comment left by "Ian Burton" at "26/11/2013 - 08:39":

Hi Ian

There currently is no way to search comments. I have to read them all to find the one I'm looking to reference. I wish the technology existed because I would install it in a flash.
.

Reply to the comment left by "The Man From Nowhere" at "26/11/2013 - 00:54":

Helpful, TMFN.

This needs thinking through. It sounds like these Part 36 rules might apply if WB offered to abandon the increase and pay costs thus far. A key question would be if strings were attached with regard to confidentiality. The tone of our discussion here and the lead being set by Mark would all point to the Class Action refusing to consider the offer if it included restrictions on publicising the outcome. We are in this for a clear result that will prevent other banks following suit.

Any idea if Part 36 rules would still apply when conditions are applied?

Reply to the comment left by "Ed Atkinson" at "26/11/2013 - 09:09":

Agreed Ed, I for one would not sign a confidentiality agreement so no such deal will ever be done with affected borrowers only. I know many others feel the same way. It only takes one to publicise such an offer, anonymously if necessary, and the West Brom's cover is completely blown. It could, in fact, be the one thing which could result in all 6,700 borrowers joining the Class Action campaign. Let's hope West Brom do make such an offer, it would do our campaign the world of good.
.