West Bromwich Building Society Tracker Margins Legal Action

can someone advise me on how i can check if WB have done any additional credit searches on me please ? thank you

Reply to the comment left by "Paul Eastabrook" at "07/12/2013 - 17:06":

No way even WB would try it on with owner occupier borrowers. The bad press is something even they would not contemplate. Throw in a repossession or two as a result with press picking up like a hawk as they would on Mr & Mrs XXXXX plus kids on their uppers and the street thrown out of their own home etc".

Reply to the comment left by "Richard Adams" at "07/12/2013 - 17:26":

I wish I could share your faith in the power of adverse publicity on a financial institution with no morals.

Reply to the comment left by "Paul Eastabrook" at "07/12/2013 - 19:14":

Time will tell? Come a bet the smart money nevertheless has to be on even WB not stooping that low. Not because they have an ounce of compassion or decency mind. Self preservation only.

Mortgage Express stuck it to me over 20 years ago, citing nonsense about not having savers to subsidise its borrowing rates like other lenders. This was in stark contrast to when it drew in the business initially by stating that it was an efficient lender which focussed solely on mortgages without any recourse to savers.

ME just decided one day to charge its residential lenders 1.25% more than other lenders' SVRs. Despite numerous appeals and complaints, we all suffered for a number of years at their hands until I myself eventually and could afford to move elsewhere. Interestingly, ME then suddenly changed tack offered me a lower rate. I politely declined and went elsewhere.

Once that trust is broken, it is usually never able to be recovered. ME is reaping what is sowed and, I suspect, WB will go the same way UNLESS it sees sense whilst there is still time. Come January, it really will be too late for them, I believe. God help everyone if they ever did succeed in what they are trying to do. Thankfully, I don't think for one moment that they will succeed, thanks solely to what everyone is doing on here. United we stand.

Reply to the comment left by "Paul Eastabrook" at "07/12/2013 - 21:13":

Maybe I'd have lost that bet then 20 years ago re sneaky old ME. There has always been the odd rogue but back then we could reasonably trust 99% of banks. building societies, insurance cos etc. Not any more. Times have changed. Different culture now exists with greedy bonus driven unscrupulous types at the top.

But I stick by mt forecast that having been exposed as being T&C exploiters over our mortgages their reputation is on the line big time right now. To go after owner occupier borrowers now would be a quite extraordinary bad judgement call. Maybe in a year or two's time after we've beaten them and they are desperate for an alternative source of cash when they might mistakenly consider the heat has died down? Who knows?

Reply to the comment left by "Richard Adams" at "08/12/2013 - 00:20":

I must admit I felt safe even in those days in the knowledge that ME was a subsidiary of United Dominions Trust which, in turn, was a subsidiary of TSB Bank Plc, some to become Lloyds TSB Plc, and I was advised of that fact by my estate agent Gascoigne Pees, itself part of Black Horse Agencies, owned by guess whom?

After that date, I thought from now on, it's mutuals only for me. Until 6 years after I discovered West Brom that is.

An aspect of this sordid affair occurred to me that might be of passing benefit to our legal team when the action starts and WB are up in court being shot at?
In the initial bombshell letter from WB there was a para saying roughly "if this increase will cause you serious grief please contact us. We can help etc". I did so and was asked what the rent of my single WB BTL mortgage property is. Told them - rent is OK as it happens. Since there will still be a surplus after paying increased interest rate they said "sorry we can't help". I said "HANG ON, you've targeted me as a multiple property owner so SURELY you have to take the impact on the whole portfolio - just 5 properties - into consideration and maybe my personal circumstances also?" They were not interested.
My point is their offer to "help" was a hollow one making their actions yet more callous. I don't suppose the Judge would be very impressed to hear about this minor aspect of the affair?

Hi All
I heard about property 118 through Justin. When I received my bombshell letter from WestBrom I googled for help and found Justin. The power of the internet to get like-minded people together, without it we would be squashed as individuals. It’s the Arab Spring for WestBrom!
I have a few affected loans with WestBrom. Before I contacted Justin I had already written a preliminary letter to WestBrom only to receive a “final” response and invitation to go to the ombudsman. I did this and am awaiting a reply. I have shared my documents with Justin and am joining him.
My points/questions are
(i) If I were West Brom, I would also join this forum to see what “the other side” is doing so although we have little choice we should be aware they will see all our ideas and concerns;
(ii) My first question to West Brom was whether the increase was to the BBR interest rate (which would seem very difficult if the BLR did not change!) or to the 0.59% add-on which is described not as an interest rate but a “premium”. So where in their agreement do they have a right to increase this “premium” which was the assessment of their risk of the market at that time and assessment for all future market conditions?
(iii) WestBrom use Section 5 of the 2006 Conditions to argue that they can increase the rate and two conditions in particular – ‘to reflect market conditions generally’ and ‘to make sure (WestBrom’s) business is carried out prudently, efficiently and competitively” (note the lack of “or” in this phrase so all three terms must be satisfied). These are words that are either determined to be terms for the sole benefit of WestBrom; or to have some reasonable, even-handedness meaning. To me West Brom cannot use these terms subjectively, they must show figures and numbers that allow them to invoke the clause. The above words do not generally relate to a simple increase in profit. They surely relate to a position where West Brom’s very survival is at stake?
(iv) Does anybody have different loan agreements with WestBrom that also include the same 2006 Conditions? That is these conditions are “general” and not specific to the loan and must thus be given lower priority than specific parts of the loan? I queried Section 5 with my broker and was told ‘its only a general document that does not apply to tracker loans in all areas’
(v) Clearly the selection of ‘groups” of customers is not reasonable or fairly applied. I find this a difficult area for WestBrom – surely a fairer approach would be to apply a lower increase to all loans. Why not select lesbians in wheelchairs as the group to target? Why is a person who holds 1 or 2 “buy to let” mortgages not a professional investor? Why apply the change to only those who took out a loan between 2006 and 2008?
(vi) I see references to the phrase “treating customers fairly” being used by our team. By what legal principle can this be argued? Is the loan contract subject to some statutory regulation or law which gives this phrase legal effect? Certainly there is nothing in my loan contract mentioning they must treat us fairly unless it is an implied term? How are we going to argue this?
Keep up the good work everyone ....
I would be very interested in members’ thoughts and possible arguments against some of my thoughts.

Reply to the comment left by "David Lawrenson" at "06/12/2013 - 20:59":

Hi David

If WB was sure it had the legal right to increase the premiums on our trackers, why would it need to have this "validated externally"?

WB did it go to the FCA, knowing that the latter doesn't care about BTL borrowers? I wonder if it was to have a similar conversation to the one you describe.

On 05/12/2013 at 17:32 (page 243 of this thread) you wondered about the quality of WB's legal advice.

Seeking legal advice, is one thing, acting in accordance with it is another. I cannot believe that any lawyer would tell WB that Section 5 could apply to tracker mortgages.