West Bromwich Building Society Tracker Margins Legal Action

Reply to the comment left by "Mike L" at "27/11/2013 - 22:44":

The USA operates a "opt out" system for class actions i.e. you're automatically included in the class action if you're a member of an affected class of people regardless of whether or not you want to be. If you want to be excluded from the class, you must make your wishes known to the courts i.e. opt out. The first a lot of people in the US know of a class action is when a cheque drops through their door. Nice huh?

Unfortunately the UK operates an "opt in" system for class actions (or what are called Group Litigation Orders). Here in the UK, if you're an affected member of a class of people, you need to "opt in", The cost to "opt in" in this case is merely £240 per affected West Brom mortgage folks!. So all you freeloaders and "fence sitters", please kindly get your chequebooks and "opt into" this class action so you can be included in the class of people covered.

Just remember, no one will be freeloading if this class action fails due to lack of funds.

TMFN, I was afraid you might say something like that. Thanks for the clarification anyway.

Reply to the comment left by "Mervyn Wharton" at "27/11/2013 - 22:55":

We continue speculating Mervyn. Glass half full or half empty re your suggestions maybe?

If WBBS actually pulled the 28 day call in stunt against the reasonable expectation that they won't it being a threat to brow beat us only, if you then immediately replied saying "I've made a mistake/got persuaded against my better judgement to fight you/am sorry etc etc and will continue paying you promptly at revised rate" I am sure they would back down .

Having paid to join if counsel's opinion is no go then we get reimbursement of much of what we've paid. If he says we've got a case then while no cast iron guarantee is on the table surely fear can be consigned to back burner?

If £240 several times is too steep - fair comment - just join with one. Nail WB on the others after the victory through Small Claims.

Against all this is the sobering thought for us all of doing nothing and accepting the rate hike. In my case I would DEFINITELY be worse off to the tune of £3120 pa. Just one mortgage only thank heavens for me but you can do the sums for yours. Taking a punt on shelling out a mere £240 for me did not need much thought.

It probably took me a month from seeing what this site was doing and finally committing to the cause.... Don't really know why, as others have said, £240 is small potatoes in the grand scheme of things...

I think what finally made me do it was the thought that as i got shafted for an extra £700 a month, i'd had a chance to do something about it and didn't take it..

I don't think I've mentioned this before but an award of damages in a commercial case in the High Court typically has interest awarded at 1% above bank base rate (subject to the court's discretion to award interest).

Wouldn't that be nice? A touch of schadenfreude even. Oh the irony! To have the West Brom pay us interest at 1% above BBR (on the damages awarded at court).

Want to experience that magical feeling? Then to quote Sir Bob Geldoff, "Give us your f*cking money!" (or more specifically, give it to The Law Department, 7A Wellington Rd, London NW10 5LJ). Scroll up this page for the details for payment by electronic transfer and join the class action. The cost is only £240 per affected mortgage.

So what are you waiting for? Christmas?

Reply to the comment left by "The Man From Nowhere" at "27/11/2013 - 23:51":

It would be even nicer if instead of the interest being awarded at 1% above base rate.... due to a downturn in market forces we would reluctantly have to add an extra 1.9% premium on top...

Reply to the comment left by "Onslow Clough" at "28/11/2013 - 00:05":

There's nothing to stop that particular representation being made to the judge. The 1% above BBR interest on damages rule isn't set in stone. You could certainly put forward the submission that it would be more prudent, efficient, and competitive to award a premium of 1.9% over and above the typical interest award of 1% above BBR. Realistically, you may struggle to drive that particular submission home, but like the saying goes, you don't ask, you don't get!

Reply to the comment left by "The Man From Nowhere" at "28/11/2013 - 00:15":

Aaaah Karma..... What goes around, comes around.. 🙂

For further information about Group Litigation Orders and how they work, the following is a link to Practice Direction 19B which sets out the principles and procedures:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part19/pd_part19b

Early on in the discussion it was suggested that a court order would be needed before WBBS could call in the loan. Doubt was then raised by counsel's preliminary advice and it is clear that some are deeply concerned about it. I don't want to raise false hopes but as far as I can see the Administration of Justice Act 1973 S8 gives the court the power to effectively nullify the clause which on the face of it gives WBBS the right to demand payment of the full amount of the loan on 28 days notice.
This issue may well be preventing some from participating in the action so a definitive answer from the lawyers as to whether S8 applies and if so what effect it has would be welcome.

Reply to the comment left by "Seething Landlord" at "28/11/2013 - 01:42":

Instead of seeking a court order for possession, lenders may exercise a contractual right to enforce their security by selling the property. This may appeal to lenders because the mortgage arrears protocol will not apply and the borrower will forfeit their equity of redemption.

Lenders can formally demand payment of the sum due under the mortgage. If a borrower fails to comply with the demand, the lender can appoint receivers and/or sell the property as an alternative to seeking a court order for possession. See Ropaigealach v Barclays Bank [1999] 4 All ER 235.

The court has no discretion under the Administration of Justice Acts 1970 and 1973 to protect borrowers in a possession claim that has been brought by the new owner of the property. In Horsham Properties Group v Clark and Beech [2008] EWHC 2327 (Ch), the lender enforced its security by exercising its contractual right to appoint a receiver who sold the property using the lender's contractual right to sell. In these circumstances, a borrower will lose their equity of redemption and if they remain in occupation will become a trespasser.

There is a clause in almost every mortgage allowing lenders to demand that a mortgage is repaid at short notice. However the Council of Mortgage Lenders states that this is only meant to cover exceptional circumstances. It is unclear whether exceptional circumstances include the financial circumstances of a lender in a recession, regardless of whether the borrower is in arrears or not.