West Bromwich Building Society Tracker Margins Legal Action

Reply to the comment left by "Concerned Landlord" at "03/10/2013 - 09:08":

The reason no-one spotted this earlier was because it was never written to mean this subsequent interpretation!

It took their legal team to trawl through it and concoct a reason to allow wording of a standard T&C booklet to override the special conditions stated on all other documents.

If it was specifically meant to allow this surely it would have been written in a way that could not be challenged.

If it was know by them from the start I'm sure they would have invoked it a few years ago.

IMHO

Reply to the comment left by "Andy Bell" at "03/10/2013 - 15:57":

Contra proferentem (Latin: "against [the] offeror"),[1] also known as "interpretation against the draftsman", is a doctrine of contractual interpretation providing that, where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording.[2] The doctrine is often applied to situations involving standardized contracts or where the parties are of unequal bargaining power, but is applicable to other cases.[3] However, the doctrine is not directly applicable to situations where the language at issue is mandated by law, as is often the case with insurance contracts and bills of lading.[4]
The reasoning behind this rule is to encourage the drafter of a contract to be as clear and explicit as possible and to take into account as many foreseeable situations as it can.
Additionally, the rule reflects the court's inherent dislike of standard-form take-it-or-leave-it contracts also known as contracts of adhesion (e.g., standard form insurance contracts for individual consumers, residential leases, etc.). The court perceives such contracts to be the product of bargaining between parties in unfair or uneven positions. To mitigate this perceived unfairness, legal systems apply the doctrine of contra proferentem; giving the benefit of any doubt in favor of the party upon whom the contract was foisted. Some courts when seeking a particular result will use contra proferentem to take a strict approach against insurers and other powerful contracting parties and go so far as to interpret terms of the contract in favor of the other party, even where the meaning of a term would appear clear and unambiguous on its face, although this application is disfavored.
Contra proferentem also places the cost of losses on the party who was in the best position to avoid the harm. This is generally the person who drafted the contract. An example of this is the insurance contract mentioned above, which is a good example of an adhesion contract. There, the insurance company is the party completely in control of the terms of the contract and is generally in a better position to, for example, avoid contractual forfeiture.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "03/10/2013 - 16:06":

Thanks Mark for laying on the line what will ultimately be the crux of the matter. We are paying a barrister to opine so let's get him started on doing so.

None of us are qualified enough to say for sure, enraged though we justifiably are,whether a small print clause stuffed away in an enclosed booklet to which our attention is not directed in any other communication is sufficiently legally sound for WB to try it on like they have.

Down to interpretation at the end of the day - the court's that is.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "03/10/2013 - 16:06":

Thanks Mark,

Err, I think that sounds like it's good

Along with your explanation regarding section 14, I'll be sleeping better this weekend.

On holiday but will pull everything together for Justin on our return. We have 4xWBBS BLT and will support this action vigorously. We found the point about solicitors interesting and in our case they were remortgages which came with free legals provided by Enact who were appointed by WBBS - everything was done by post.

I have found a few scans from 2006 and found the following wording.

"Interest
I understand that
(c) the society has the right to vary the rates of interest and monthly payments in accordance with the terms of the Mortgage Conditions"

Since I had a fixed going onto a tracker, then obviously I expected the rates and payments to vary.

I'm getting all my bits and bobs together to be posted. I've not found a booklet, though.

Mark

Great work but just having had a close shave with Litigation as a voluntary director i am concerned at signing up for this action and then finding i am liable for a large slice of £1 - £200000 as i started it and then presumably have to finish it , win and pay costs or pay costs when losing...sorry if i am being stupid but some sort of clarification of actual liability here would be reassuring although i do realise actual figures will rely on litigants involved ..I would like to both join this action and also donate to your sterling work following this

i was sold 2 wbbs blt mortgages at 0.59%above base as a remortgage, my monthly payments will nearly treble. to say im furious is an understatement. i had a rant at the customer relation but only succeded in winding myself up, particularly at the point where the manager kindly explained how according to the t and c's they could ask for the mortgage to be redeemed after 1 months notice. having climbed back off the roof i now feel a little better having read some of the posts. there are so many i can not keep up, but this hope fully demonstrates the strength of feeling and support for the case. i have raised a complaint against wbbs using your template letters and also against the financial advisors who sold them. they will be sending me copies of all relevant documentation, which i will copy along with any documentation i have kept, and wlil be sending them to you along with my payment for #480.00. thanks for taking up the fight, i feel a little better knowing im not fighting on my own

Hi Shaun

If we don't raise enough to cover our own costs of litigation whether we win or lose then we will not progress to point 5 in Justin's plan.

If that happens and their is money left in Justin's client account it will be refunded in the same way as it would be if WBBS changed their minds tomorrow morning.

Happy with that?
.

Thank you Mark

So by signing up i am not becoming liable for unlimited costs as the proceedings could be stopped by us at any given point within our funding or needs and i am not going to get an unwarranted legal costs demand for £00s or £000s of pounds unless i am willing to proceed personally .correct ?