West Bromwich Building Society Tracker Margins Legal Action

Contra proferemtem - Google it, remember it

Hi Mark,

Have been busy for the past few days, so little feedback etc from me. However, just to say you can count me in for the Class Action! We have 3 mortgages with this avaricious lender, and so £240 x 3 for us (£720 in total). This equates to about 6 weeks worth of mortgage interest increase, if WB were to impose this grossly unfair, discriminating and unethical money-grabbing move, targeting 'professional' landlords like this.

I am preparing the paperwork as of now, and will forward it all to Justin, with our cheque for the above amount.

I have managed to garner a little extra support for this action, from a few other landlords who I had on my database, from the monthly property networking meetings I ran and hosted. They in turn have mass e-mailed their respective landlord databases and so we will all benefit from this. My how useful the Internet is to rapidly get the message out there and form a collective like this. How big business must curse it at times, eh?

Let's keep up the momentum and put a nail in the coffin of this baby, once and for all. I care not whether they as a building society are in financial difficulty or not! Why should be landlords be made to pay for their own failings? I doubt the CEOs and their gang are taking any pay cuts, so I don't see why I should stomp up for the mismanagement of their BS. If they do go under, then the government will either 'bail them out' (i.e. tax-payer bailout) or another bank or building society will take them over. So our mortgages won't be wiped; and whomever were to take control, won't then be able to change the terms of our tracker mortgages either. So if/when we win this case, it'll ensure our futures too.

They should hold their heads in shame!

Reply to the comment left by "Incensed Landlord" at "06/10/2013 - 13:28":

Well said! Couldn't have put it better ourselves! Our cheque for £480 (2 properties for us) should be with Justin by now - so glad to have the internet and this forum - big thank you to Mark!

Oh disaster ...I have a problem - we have 2 WBBS tracker mortgages but I can only locate the offer documentation etc for one of them.
I know I will have the other set of papers for sure somewhere as there's is no way I would have thrown important stuff like that out, but I'm beginning to think it must be with some of the archived paperwork in the attic (but where in the attic is the big question) from when I moved here!
Every other piece of paperwork for all 5 properties is in its correct allocated folders for each property.
Will I be able to proceed and to send Justin the £480 for the 2 properties with only supporting paperwork for one of them?
I assume the BS must have copies of all that I signed and would be able to provide it even if at a cost - and was that one of the 3 things I asked them to send me when I sent my letter of complaint last week?

Denise, I don't think it's a major disaster, just send a note to Justin with everything to say the teaming papers will follow in due course 🙂

In reply to Incensed landlord I was not suggesting anything other than another tack which may bring more pressure on the building society. If everyone on a tracker realised this could affect them and everyone with savings in the building society also realised that they could change their terms with impunity (which I realise they already do) and withdrew their funds and as a result the building society got into difficulty I think that as a result of all of that the government would be very interested as the last thing they want is another bailout. What's going on is absolutely amazing from everyone at 118 - Mark especially but surely all pressure will help as the idea, apart from stopping West Brom, must surely be to make any lender see what they will face if they try this on in the future. As you so right say it is keeping up the momentum and all pressure on them will help

Hmm,,, New to the party. Just spent an hour or so catching up with the last few threads.

I have two buy to let mortgages with West Bromwich and I received my letter a few days ago and have been thinking about my response when I came across your website

My wife who has done some legal training - a Law degree and the LPC ( legal practice course - exams of the solicitor), is very sensibly in bed and I will discuss this in the morning with her.

From my limited knowledge, there are a number of issues apart from those seemed to already have been raised. I have gone back over the last 10 pages of the thread and one significant omission seems to relating to a fairly fundamental issue. Please forgive me if there is mention on this earlier on and perhaps someone could refer the page number to me so I can go back and have a look. however very fundamental thing going on is covered by the office of fair trading. the issue relates to "Unfair Terms and Conditions". I have copied this from the following: Office of Fair Trading:

Unfair contract terms guidance

Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts
Regulations 1999

September 2008:

"The test of fairness:

The Regulations apply a test of fairness to all standard terms (terms that
have not been individually negotiated) in contracts used by businesses with
consumers, subject to certain exceptions. The main exemption is for terms
that set the price or describe the main subject matter of the contract (usually
known as 'core terms') provided they are in plain and intelligible language –
see Part IV. The Regulations thus apply to what is commonly called 'the
small print' of standard form consumer contracts.
A standard term is unfair 'if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it
causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising
under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer'– Regulation 5(1).
Unfair terms are not enforceable against the consumer.
The requirement of 'good' faith embodies a general 'principle of fair and
open dealing'.1
It means that terms should be expressed fully, clearly and
legibly and that terms that might disadvantage the consumer should be given
appropriate prominence – see below. However transparency is not enough
on its own, as good faith relates to the substance of terms as well as the
way they are expressed and used. It requires a supplier not to take
advantage of consumers' weaker bargaining position, or lack of experience,
in deciding what their rights and obligations shall be. Contracts should be
drawn up in a way that respects consumers' legitimate interests.
In assessing fairness, we take note of how a term could be used. A term is
open to challenge if it is drafted so widely that it could cause consumer
detriment. It may be considered unfair if it could have an unfair effect, even
if it is not at present being used unfairly in practice and there is no current
1
Per Lord Bingham of Cornhill in Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank plc [2001]
UKHL 52
Unfair contract terms guidance 10

intention to use it unfairly. In such cases fairness can generally be achieved
by redrafting the term more precisely, so that it reflects the practice and
current intentions of the supplier.
Schedule 2 to the Regulations illustrates the meaning of 'unfairness' by
listing some types of terms which may be regarded as unfair. The 17 groups
of terms covered in Part II correspond to the 17 headings used in paragraph
1 of Schedule 2. The terms listed are not necessarily unfair – it is a 'grey'
not a 'black' list. But terms are under suspicion of unfairness if they either
have the same purpose or can produce the same result as terms in the 'grey'
list. They do not have to have the same form or mechanism.
All the illustrative terms listed in Schedule 2 have the object or effect of
altering the position which would exist under the ordinary rules of contract
and the general law if the contract were silent. They either protect the
supplier from certain sorts of claim in law which the consumer might
otherwise make, or give rights against the consumer that the supplier would
not otherwise enjoy.
The OFT's starting point in assessing the fairness of a term is, therefore,
normally to ask what would be the position for the consumer if it did not
appear in the contract. The principle of freedom of contract can no longer be
said to justify using standard terms to take away protection consumers
would otherwise enjoy. The Regulations recognise that contractual small
print is in no real sense freely agreed with consumers. Where a term changes
the normal position seen by the law as striking a fair balance it is regarded
with suspicion.
Transparency is also fundamental to fairness. Regulation 7 says that
standard terms must use plain and intelligible language. Taking account of
the Directive the Regulations implement, this needs to be seen as part of a
wider requirement of putting the consumer into a position where he can
make an informed choice (see below Part IV). Thus even though a term
would be clear to a lawyer, we will probably conclude that it has the
potential for unfairness if it is likely to be unintelligible to consumers and
thereby cause detriment, or if it is misleading (in which case its use may also
be actionable as an unfair commercial practice – see below).

I have truncated the quotation there but I think everybody gets a picture.
There may well before backing under on their terms than possibly anything else.

The second point I would like to mention, is the notice period that we have been given about the impending rate change which appears to be purely arbitrary. Both in terms of 2% rise ( with no clear indication as to why 2% had been plucked out of the sky - e.g. why 2% and not 1%, 1.5% or 10%?). The vast majority of us appear to be have given about two months notice.

My limited understanding of contract law, suggests that if there is a change to the terms of the contract ( which undoubtedly this is), then an adequate notice period should be given. Interestingly enough, in the NHS (which is where my wife has the most experience) this period is usually not less than six months.

I think therefore, that there are number of significant technicalities that can be argued against West Bromwich decision.

I'll add more to the post in the next day or so when I have had the chance to discuss this further with my good lady.

welcome - sounds like we have another very valuable and well-informed new party attendee to me

Reply to the comment left by "Ivan Ratnayake" at "07/10/2013 - 02:03":

Thanks a lot Ivan - truly objective comments - more of the same please...

I think when WB resort to threatening and bullying, we know how weak their feeble position really is...

Like the two previous bloggers I appreciate Ivan's input but I do not think that we should consider complaining about the notice period or even raising this or any other side issue. The very simple issue we have to fight on is that the premise of West Brom's raising the percentage is wrong and must be stopped in its tracks. I agree with "concerned landlord" West Brom are bullying and bullies don't like when they face opposition. That is why I think that my previous comment about people withdrawing any savings they have with West Brom is valid; that will hurt them and make them aware that people are not taking this without a fight. I would certainly remove funds from any bank/building society who tried to pull this on their borrowers.