West Bromwich Building Society Tracker Margins Legal Action

Reply to the comment left by "Seething Landlord" at "06/12/2013 - 10:58":

Thanks 🙂
.

LEGAL ACTION UPDATE – 06/12/2013

We have had another good week of instructions – with 18 new clients.

We have decided to stop reporting the amount of money raised but we will report how many people we are now representing in this action. We are now representing 292 people in this action, so we should break 300 early next week.
We are trying to categorise our clients depending on their paperwork. We do need to know from anyone who has not told us – how many properties did you own at the time you took out your mortgage with WBBS. Unfortunately the large majority of people have not given us this information, and it could be key to your case – so if you have not told us please simply send an email to ana@lawdepartment.co.uk stating your name, the property address and the number of properties owned at the time you took out your mortgage with WBBS. Once we have that information from you, depending on what you tell us, we will be writing to you individually.

We are expecting our QC’s opinion in the next week or so. In the meantime, we are working on additional angles of attack against WBBS including one which may hold the directors of WBBS personally liable.

There has also been some good developments on the Bank of Ireland case which will have a bearing on the WBBS case. We will be updating the Bank of Ireland forum next week with further details of those developments and repeat those developments on this forum at the end of next week.

Reply to the comment left by "All BankersAreBarstewards Smith" at "05/12/2013 - 21:35":

I was thinking about the effect of tarnishing the brand on potential new borrowers who intend to buy or re-mortgage their own homes, the market that WB plans to increase its share of, rather than the effect on savers. But even savers might balk at WB breaching its contracts.

One way WB planned to increase its share was via independent brokers. I doubt if that strategy will be as successful as WB had hoped, now that it has shot itself in the foot by victimising the latter’s BTL clients.

But once the general public is made aware of WB breaching our contracts through the press campaign or through a court case, WB will become a building society to avoid.

It will not need the new money it is trying to attract with best-buy rates, except possibly to pay for its new offices.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "05/12/2013 - 17:43":

The article in Mortgage Solutions on 5/12 ended with:

"However, a West Brom spokesman said: “The buy to let mortgages affected have not been selected on the basis that they were introduced by brokers. The reason for their inclusion in the rate change activity is because the borrowers are landlords of multiple property portfolios and the channel via which the mortgages were sold has no bearing.

In relation to the court case, he added: “Changes are being made in line with the accounts’ terms and conditions, which were designed to ensure we could fulfil our duty to manage our business prudently in all market conditions. We had this validated externally before introducing the change.”

This is a strange sentence. What external body validates this sort of thing? I wonder if he or she means their approach to the FCA.

I also wonder if the claim that "the channel via which the mortgages were sold has no bearing” can be true, given that no affected borrower has told this forum that his or her mortgage was not taken out through an independent broker.

Reply to the comment left by "Appalled Landlord" at "06/12/2013 - 17:01":

Appalled Landlord is right to find this phrase odd.

I understand that in the case of another building society, who a few years ago, did something similar on base rate trackers, that they had asked the FSA (as it was) whether they could also renege on the tracker commitment. And I understand the conversation was very much along the lines of, "If you don't let us try it, we'll go bust - and you don't want that to happen do you."

I cannot verify this for sure, but if this kind of conversation took place, we would not be at all surprised.

David Lawrenson
http://www.LettingFocus.com

I have mixed feelings about the distinction between 'Consumers' and 'Landlords with Multiple Properties'...

While there seems to be some (immediate) personal benefit (for me) in being treated as a 'Consumer' - I think it is important to stand up for the fundamental issue here.

We (all) signed up for a Tracker and it isn't right or fair that we now find ourselves on what is, effectively, an SVR (I can't think of any other way to describe a deal where one party can impose a rate change whenever it suits them).

This forum has been (actively) supported by individuals who are not (yet) affected by this scandal, but who realise the potential consequences to EVERYONE who has a Tracker Mortgage. There are others with multiple WB policies - at least some of which must fall into the (so-called) 'Multiple Property' classification.

In one of the earlier posts, Mark set out the objective that we aim for an argument that works for us all - and (if possible) sets a precedent that will stop other lenders from copying WB. Let's not lose focus on that objective...

Regards
SW

Well, the increased payments have started... it was for 3 properties and made my eyes water a bit, i'm just glad i signed up to the class action. The cost was roughly the same as my monthly increase so the way I look at it the extra payments just started a month earlier.... I just hope more people look at it this way.

same for us - the increased payments started on December 1st and are only a tadge less than the joining fees to Propetry 118 - well, we had to find it in December and for then onwards until solution so I'm glad we had already signed up in October. Just like paying WBBs one month early really in terms of the bank balance

I wonder if we will hear from people in the next couple of weeks with a mortgage beginning with 9??

Reply to the comment left by "Shining Wit" at "06/12/2013 - 23:05":

What an admirable post, 13 likes already!

I think what you are saying is that you are not interested in being excused from paying the 1.9% rate hike on the technicality of only having 1 or 2 buy to let properties when you obtained funding from West Brom. I agree that we are all fighting this war together and I am very happy that you are prepared to continue to fight for the cause.

The way I think you are looking at this is that we are all on the front line in this battle. Some people are being given leave to go home before the battle commences but you are so passionate about what you are fighting for that you are volunteering to continue to fight and refusing to leave the battle field. I think that's why your comment has so many likes. Look upon these likes as medals.

I will be sending a link to your comment to Justin to highlight the strength of feeling about this.

THANK YOU!
.