West Bromwich Building Society Tracker Margins Legal Action

Reply to the comment left by "Alexander Law" at "17/12/2013 - 12:20":

It's interesting that their main argument seems to hinge on "3. The conditions of the loan stipulate we are able to vary the interest rate unless specified as a fixed rate"

Again, they are greying the terms by suggesting that a tracker is as variable as an SVR mortgage (Standard Variable Rate), which as we all know and have already discussed, is simply not true.

In all, a very unimaginative letter from WBBS.

The overriding rule is Company Policy Is Not Law, which is exactly why a court needs to decide the outcome.

"Furthermore, the mortgage conditions are applicable to the loan itself and not the mortgage product. As you are aware during the life of borrowing you are able to switch the type of mortgage product you hold. Therefore, you will have conditions to support the loan and specific term the support the product (sic)."

This is utterly confusing and non-sensical, especially the bit where she says, ",....the mortgage conditions are applicable to the loan itself and not the mortgage product."

This is really stretching their argument to a rather new level and I hope Mr. Selig will be ready to counter such a silly notion.

Also, as another poster has said, their attempt to define and separate out landlords who are consumers and non consumers has no basis in any law we have ever seen, nor in the Foxtons case - and is their own assessment. This is also nonsense and we really wonder who is advising WBBS here.

David Lawrenson
http://www.LettingFocus.com
PRS Advice

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Smith (Barrister-At-Law)" at "17/12/2013 - 13:51":

Thanks Mark - re "non-consumers" - so how can WB only target landlords with 3+ properties ? (I can't be the only WB customer in a position where i have more than 3 properties but have not been targeted.)

Don't we need to be carefull not to give WB the details of our arguments/ case against them ? Some of the comments are very interesting & well argued but I don't feel entirely comfortable having some of it available on a forum that we know they are reading.......or am I concerned unnecessarily ?

Reply to the comment left by "David Lawrenson" at "18/12/2013 - 10:07":

The part I quoted from WBBS's reply to the customer in my earlier post rather puts me in mind of classic doublespeak.......
"Winston, of course one knows that black is black and white is white. But can you be sure, Winston?. If the party says black is actually white, then, of course, black is indeed white...and you know that to be true, don't you Winston" (Apologies to Mr. Orwell)

Reply to the comment left by "David Lawrenson" at "18/12/2013 - 10:07":

David,

To a large degree the lender is correct in saying that the Mortgage Conditions apply to the loan and not the product.

If for example you look at a typical example of standard Mortgage Conditions from another lender here:

http://www.ingdirect.co.uk/home/tandc/england_wales.pdf

You will see it covers conditions mainly relating to the loan but also it does refer to product switches during the term of the loan and Special Conditions.

See page 7

WBBS obviously think they can manipulate Tracker rates in the same way as an SVR. But will the Court see it that way? I doubt it!

And will the Court agree that the affected borrowers are not consumers? I doubt that too!

As I say, Company Policy is not Law 🙂

Reply to the comment left by "Norfolk n'Chance" at "18/12/2013 - 11:01":

Norfolk n'Chance - I share your disquiet about discussing our arguments in public like this as well.

All is not quite as bad as it might seem however as, unlike in the movies, their can be no ambushing of the opposition with sudden last minute 'rabbit-out-of-the-hat' expositions in court because both sides are required to exchange details of the arguments that they intend to rely on ahead of time. As the relatively recently revised Police caution has it - "...failing to mention now what you subsequently rely on in court..." etc.

I do however worry that by debating in public we give the other side much longer than they otherwise might enjoy to consider our points and come up with stronger counterarguments.

WBBS have the impossible task of demonstrating at the very least two things to the Court.

1. That you the affected borrowers are NOT consumers

2. That WBBS have a right to manipulate Tacker rate mortgages in the same way as an SVR (Standard Variable Rate) Mortgage.

I can not see how they can achieve Point 1 due to the Foxtons case and Point 2 due to the definition of a Tracker mortgage as it is understood by a reasonable person.

Just ask yourselves "At which point do I not become a consumer?" According to WBBS it's 3 properties but unfortunately for them, that is not stated in Law.

As if it were happening right now, I can almost hear the Court saying to WBBS................

"How did you arrive at the figure of 3 properties being the number necessary to classify a borrower as a non-consumer?"

And WBBS saying "Well, actually Sir.......hhmmm......we just made it up"

🙂

A court’s decision becomes unpredictable if it allows itself to become bogged down by the finer points and technicalities of an issue. At all costs the WB will try to steer arguments away from the basic principle…
‘I was assured both verbally and in writing by the West Brom that my BTL tracker mortgage would track the Bank of England base rate at +0.99% for the whole term of the mortgage.
Even in their letter warning me about the 2% increase, they refer to my mortgage as a ‘buy to let tracker mortgage’ it is not a standard variable mortgage!
West Brom stated clearly…a "Tracker mortgages give you the certainty of knowing that the rate you pay will move in line with bank base rates"
It is not and that must be wrong!