West Bromwich Building Society Tracker Margins Legal Action

Hello everyone and Happy New Year !

Just received a letter today from the WBBS in response to the letter I sent to them in November re the increase being 1.9% as opposed to the 2% in which I had asked for a seperate complaint to be raised.

However, they have done as I expected and said the letter has been added as extra correspondence to my original complaint.

They then go on to say they can set it at 1.9% due to the standard response of carrying out their business prudently, etc etc

The next part of the letter says that an increase of 1.9% was derived following a review of cost of funding etc but then says The fact that the increase will still result in a rate which compares favorably with 'best buy' buy to let mortgage rates demonstrates that the increase is reasonable.

Would love them to try and use that agrument in court !!

Keep up the good work everyone - it won't be long till the action starts for real !

I'm after a bit of advice, I have an appointment with my local MP on Friday to discuss the WBBS situation. Has anybody met up with their MP as opposed to written and if so can anyone recommend how to approach this meeting to maximise the effect. I will of course address the main issues re unauthorised rate hike but i just wondered if anyone has any other suggestions. I doubt i will get much time so i want to make the most of it.

Hi all and happy new year. I am a paid up landlord to the class action. Could u give me some advice please. I first received notice by West Brom about the rate increase in Sept 13. I immediately complained to WB and got their standard final answer. I then contacted The Financial Ombudsmen and they sent me a letter which I have NOT returned as the view on this forum was not to send anything back until Justin tells us to. I am concerned as I believe I have 6 months from my original complaint to use the Financial Ombudsmen. This I believe takes us to February. Can anyone advise what I should do? Regards

Just though I'd copy an extract from a letter I've come across that was sent out by WB in July 2010, asking whether I wanted to cap my current tracker mortgages with them. The letter discusses the tracker mortgages and states very clearly that while 'you are already enjoying the benefits of your current tracker mortgage of Bank Base Rate + 1.99% variable, the interest rate applicable to your mortgage will continue to FALL AND RISE IN LINE WITH INTEREST RATES' (my caps). So not did the original mortgage offer clearly state that our mortgages would track the Bank Base Rate, but even paperwork they were sending out in 2010 attempting to get me to take a new capped product, was totally misleading the customer. Again, nowhere in this paperwork do they say that they can just change the rate whenever they see fit...

Reply to the comment left by "Onslow Clough" at "06/01/2014 - 15:43":

Onslow

It would seem you are unique in getting an opportunity to meet your MP. As the rest of us have mainly only received fob off letters passing the buck and/or advising going to FCA, FOS, CAB plus Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, if I were in your shoes I would major heavily on the breach of contract aspect, WB relying on T&C's small print to rip us off.

If your MP is Conservative (or Lib Dem) remind him of the government's pledge to clean up financial institutions post recession. Turning a blind eye as the government are doing to WB's sleight of hand does not sit with this pledge. You could add that we are being cynically picked on as WB believes we are not protected by consumer protection. Then there is the nasty multiple owner side issue as well.

Remind your MP how recently RBS have pulled a not dissimilar trick on their small business a/c holders to try and trouser their assets.

Does your MP wish to sit idly by while banks, BS's etc behave like Dick Turpin and their fat cat top brass continue to pull big bonuses etc. Ask him why the Treasury & BofE do nothing?

Good luck with your interview. Maybe as a result your MP might raise the matter in the HofC?

Reply to the comment left by "Richard Adams" at "07/01/2014 - 15:43":

Thank you Richard, there are some good points there that i probably wouldn't have thought to mention. I didn't think many people had been able to pin down their MP so it says a lot about our chap. Perhaps even more reason why I should maximise the opportunity.

Bursting to know how your meeting with Justin went today?

Reply to the comment left by "Tony the hairdresser " at "07/01/2014 - 10:22":

having received final response letters from WB and connells who were the intermidiaries, i also am concerned about missing deadlines to respond to the financial ombudsman and the FCA. mark, do you have any idea when there might be a letter template for each.

Well Shaun, it seems you too have been 'advised' by Connells. I'm sure there have been others on this forum too, but I'm not on here a lot.

However, Connells advised us too (that was what they indicated in their tick-box on the forms) and following my initial e-mail alerting them to the possibility that they might want to protect themselves from future claims, that they might want to support the cause. Well, here are the 3 exchanges we've had, which I think you'll agree, amounts to them merely washing their hands of the matter!

MY INITIAL E-MAIL TO THEM:
*******************************************************
Dear Ms. Hipperson,

Your reference: **************, 26/3/07
Re mortgages: (--3 addresses given)

Following the recent news from West Bromwich to raise its Tracker Buy-to-Let interest rate by 2% (in contravention of the product and its 'lifetime' tracker status), we wish to forewarn you of the action we are taking to seek legal redress to this breach of contract:
MESSAGE TO MORTGAGE ADVISERS AND SOLICITORS (Connells Mortgage Services & Homefast Property Lawyers)

In the unlikely event of us losing our case against West Brom then it will be clear that you were negligent in not pointing out the Mortgage Conditions which West Brom are allowed to use against us. Therefore, to save claims on your own PI policies it is in your interests to make sure we can beat West Brom in Court. To help us achieve this we need to engage with more affected borrowers. YOU my friends are in a position to make the necessary introductions. The choice is yours.

'signed off'
******************************************************
CONNELLS RESPONSE TO ME:

Good Afternoon

Thank you for your email and confirmation that you are taking legal action against the West Bromwich for invoking a term in their mortgage conditions.

Unfortunately we are unable to provide you with any information regarding any borrowers who may have been impacted by the West Bromwich's decision to increase their mortgage rate.

Regards

Julia Gough CeMAP CeRCH AdvCeMAP | Complaints Manager
Cumbria House, 16-20 Hockliffe Street, Leighton Buzzard
Bedfordshire, LU7 1GN
Tel: 01525 218556
Email: Julia.Gough@connells.co.uk
Web: http://www.connellsgroup.co.uk
*******************************************************

Quite WHERE she got the idea I was wanting information of other borrowers, AND completely missing the thrust of my point, I've no idea. Clearly not very astute; and one wonders how she copes as a 'Complaints Manager'!

*******************************************************
MY 2ND AND FINAL, TERSE, REPLY TO HER:

Dear Ms. Gough,

Thank you for confirming receipt of my e-mail, and also to acknowledge the action I'm taking; however, I think there seems to be a misunderstanding:

I'm not expecting you to provide me with information regarding any borrowers, but more that you, at Connells might like to approach borrowers, who like I, are now affected by this unlawful action by West Bromwich. As I have made clear, not only might this help these clients – your clients remember! - but that it put you on notice of a possible claim against yourselves, IF this Class Action isn't successful. It's therefore in your best interest to take appropriate action to both help your clients as well as avoid any possible legal ramifications against yourselves for failure to bring this possibility to my/our attention.

I have already formally complained to the Financial Ombudsman, following contact with West Bromwich directly in the first instance of course. However, West Brom, like you, have dismissed our concerns, which is why I have taken this course of action, and will bring the full force of the law down on those responsible. I'm merely, out of courtesy, forewarning you of possible courses of action, so that you have time meanwhile, to take this under your wing, in a similarly professional manner, and either back us, or if not,a nd you do nothing and/or side with West Brom, that you might find yourselves on the end of a very public campaign and legal battle.

As I say, the choice is yours; and your dismissive response doesn't of course do you justice. I will, for obvious reasons, keep copies of any and all correspondence of this nature, for future records. I would suggest that you pass this information to a senior colleague, to avoid further complications!

Thank you in advance.

Kind Regards,

'signed off'
************************************************

So there you have the extent of interest and responsibility from Connells! As you can see from my tone, I don't suffer fools gladly!.............Okay, so it's West Brom who are the real sharks here, but you'd think Connells would want to take their business seriously AND to support from a moral standpoint, wouldn't you? (well, perhaps not!).

UPDATE

I met with Justin yesterday and we spent nearly 3 hours discussing the variety of opinions and strategical options we have received from our original barrister, our QC and Mark Smith. I will not go into any detail here at this stage, save to say that law is both interesting and a complete pain in the arse!

One stark reality which I had not appreciated is that if we win our case it is highly likely that West Brom will appeal and, depending on which legal advisers opinions we take, we may have not raised enough money yet to deal with that.

Our legal advisers are also massively apart on their estimates of what they think the other sides legal costs will be and this affects how much ATE insurance we will have to pay. For example, Mark smith believes we will could a costs protection order of around £40,000 to £60,000 and on that basis, no matter what West Brom spend, that's all they will be able to claim against our ATE insurance if we lose. Our QC has not even mentioned costs protection orders or costs in his opinion but has verbalised that West Brom could spend upwards of 7 figures defending against our action as it is in their interests to do so! Our QC's opinion is based on the legal matters alone which on one hand is great but costs protection is equally important to us all as the prospects of being bankrupted if we do lose and are forced to pay West Brom's legal costs are not appealing to say the least.

It's all getting quite complicated and I can see now why we were told that we couldn't just go ahead as soon as we receive the QC's opinion.

My preference would be to have both Mark Smith and our QC working together on this case together.

I like Mark Smith as he has taken a close personal interest in the case and he has given us the best risk assessment at the moment, although all think the odds of winning are in our favour and the case is worth fighting. If our QC can be persuaded that Mark Smith's arguments and strategies, particularly in respect of obtaining a costs protection order, are better (I think they are) then the cost of our ATE insurance should also improve, hence limiting our risks to our investment

Mark Smith also charges a lot less so he could do much of the work which I don't think we can justify paying a QC to do. On the other hand, the QC is far better known and far more experienced in this sector and will no doubt know the top Silks who will be on the other side representing West Brom. Horses for courses I suppose, hence my preference to have them both.

Justin is open minded to the idea and I have have also discussed this with Mark Smith. Please note that Mark Smith provided me with his opinion on my case some months ago but Justin has not seen this.

I have discussed the above with Mark Smith and he is open minded to acting as a Junior Barrister to our QC. This is what I am recommending at the moment but we will need to pay Mark Smith for the advice he has given to me to be shared with Justin and our QC as it does differ in some legal points and strategies. I actually prefer the way that Mark Smith works but I also appreciate that in law the "snob value" does carry weight too. Forgive my analogy but I think that instructing our QC to act for us would be a bit like having a Lamborghini in the garage which we take out occasionally for posing purposes and a VW Golf to do the running around. I think we have raised enough funds for both.

On this basis Mark Smith is re-vamping the opinion he prepared for me personally and will submit this to Justin this weekend. His opinion and proposed strategies will then be shared with our QC and we will take it from there.

I can assure you that I want to progress this as much as you do, hence the frustration of having to wait to get West Brom into Court is eating me up. However, I also appreciate the importance of this case and if we all have to stay patient for a bit longer then so be it.

In the meantime, let's continue to focus on getting more people signed up 🙂
.