West Bromwich Building Society Tracker Margins Legal Action

Not sure if this has been mentioned before? An article in the FT By Daniel Liberto Published Nov 27, 2013
Financial Adviser Service Awards: Mortgages Round-up - Here is a summary
One-star winners:
Only four companies made it into the lowest mortgage category in 2013,
The fourth company to make up this table is West Bromwich Building Society. After a three-year absence, the building society re-entered the awards in bottom position.

I can't see this improving anytime soon

Reply to the comment left by "Deceived by West Brom " at "13/12/2013 - 10:11":

What a brilliant idea! We could accrue interest on it that way as well presumably.

Reply to the comment left by "Paul Eastabrook" at "13/12/2013 - 10:58":

At least it would mean that the WB do not have the benefit of its ill gotten gains while we are fighting them in court. One would not like to think that the WB are able to use our own money against us to bank roll their legal fighting fund!
It is beyond doubt that the rate increase is in dispute and appears to be heading for court and it is not unreasonable for us to be concerned (in light of the financial crisis) about the safety of our money and the ability of WB to return it to us should they loose the case!

Reply to the comment left by "David " at "13/12/2013 - 10:57":

I'm surprised they came 4th from last.
It almost beggars belief that there are 3 lenders who are worse !

Reply to the comment left by "Paul Eastabrook" at "13/12/2013 - 10:58":

I understood that interest WILL be payable on money owing in any event. It was discussed way back on this forum.

I also agree that it seems a good idea..... I'd hate to see us win the court case and loose the money already paid out.

Reply to the comment left by "Samir Patel" at "13/12/2013 - 10:17":

Hi Samir,

The main thrust of the representative action on here against the WBBS is that the West Brom are treating the BTL tracker mortgages we all signed up to as SVR mortgages and that the clause they refer to in the accompanying booklet applies to SVR mortgages and not to trackers. The contra proferentem rule is also being relied upon as is an established line of case law.

With your particular case, I don't know if there is enough scope to bring it within the remit of the current representative action. I suspect there is not. All I can suggest is that if you and a number of other similarly affected borrowers can club together and come up with the funds to purchase ATE insurance and cover your legal costs, then I think you have a good chance of winning at court.

Resolving this matter at court is your best (and likely the only realistic) strategy. The various regulatory bodies e.g. the PRA, FCA, FOS, OFT, have proven themselves to be singularly ineffective paper tigers who aren't in the least bit interested in our cause. Similarly government departments like HM Treasury and government ministers are so disinterested they don't even bother to read our countless letters to them properly, preferring instead to fob us off with scripted responses about how interest rate decisions are matters for individual banks/building societies. Now this may be because they are incompetent, useless, and ineffective or it may be that they are unwilling due to ulterior motives. After all, the Profit Participating Deferred Shares (PPDS) scheme that allowed the West Brom to stave off collapse was the brainchild of the former FSA and HM Treasury. In fact, the same day the PPDS scheme was announced was the same day the WBBS stated it would be swapping £182.5 million of subordinated PPDS to recapitalise as the PPDS counts as Tier 1 capital.

The West Bromwich Building Society's future was only made possible by the creation of the new shares by the Treasury and the Financial Services Authority. Therefore the FCA and the PRA (the successors to the FSA) as well as HM Treasury have a vested interest in not assisting us with our case against the West Brom. It's hardly surprising they have no wish to help us or even listen to the concerns we have raised. They're in bed with the West Brom.

Ultimately therefore, any successful outcome in both your case and ours will ONLY be obtained at court.

Reply to the comment left by "Norfolk n'Chance" at "13/12/2013 - 11:30":

Yes, it was indeed raised previously. I know, however, that I would feel much more comfortable having the safety net of a ring-fenced fund accruing interest that would then have to be released by either WB or, better still, nominated trustees upon judgement being given. There would seem less opportunity for WB to wriggle because of "exceptional market conditions" reducing interest rates payable. Alternatively, maybe we should just add 1.9% to the agreed interest rate when the time comes for it to be paid out. God, I never used to be this cynical. WB has driven me to it.

Reply to the comment left by "Norfolk n'Chance" at "13/12/2013 - 11:30":

I have previously suggested that anyone paying the increased amounts send a letter/email to WBML saying that it is paid under protest and without prejudice to their claim that it is unlawfully demanded. Please see my previous posts for wording.

Anyone not paying may face being picked off individually by WB in the County Court

Reply to the comment left by "The Man From Nowhere" at "13/12/2013 - 11:35":

@ samir

If you want to email me the details to mark@cotswoldbarristers.co.uk i will take a look, no charge no obligation.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Smith (Barrister-At-Law)" at "13/12/2013 - 11:44":

Yes I ....
* did read your previous post.
* did write a letter to WB as you suggested and
* I have no intention of withholding any mortgage payments.
Thanks for the advice.