West Bromwich Building Society Tracker Margins Legal Action

Reply to the comment left by "LS " at "30/01/2014 - 09:38":

We have tried that once, we stalled at a few thousand.
.

Mark, how will be know if our MPs have called for the 90 minute debate so we don't need to remind them again? Ours has already signed for the EDM and we can see him listed and we have requested him to support the debate.
Once again thanks to everyone for all the great work and huge progress being made. It's such a pleasure and uplifting to be a paid up member of the campaign.

Reply to the comment left by "Highland Lass" at "30/01/2014 - 09:57":

I would like to think he would let you know, if he doesn't, a phone an email followed up with a phone call to thank him for signing the EDM and asking him to talk to David Morris or Jason McCartney about a strategy for applying for a 90 minute debate would be perfectly reasonable in my opinion.

Good luck and please report back how you get on 🙂
.

So angry with the following reply from my MP, see below!

Dear Mr Davison

Thank you for your further email about the conduct of mortgage lenders and EDM 976.

Decisions concerning the pricing and availability of loans, including the level of interest charged, remain commercial decisions for lenders, and the Government does not seek to intervene in these. Although the Treasury sets the legal framework for the regulation of financial services, it does not have investigative or prosecuting powers of its own and is not able to intervene in individual cases.

Additionally, responsibility for determining whether a mortgage has been mis-sold is a matter for the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The FCA has already engaged with the Bank of Ireland to highlight the importance of treating all of their customers fairly. It has reviewed the contract term within the mortgage agreement that enables the Bank of Ireland to change its tracker mortgage and it has concluded that, in their view, it is fair. Ultimately, however, the courts can decide the fairness of a contract term under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

As you are aware, many of the loans affected by recent changes to tracker rates were buy-to-let mortgages. When mortgage regulation was introduced in October 2004, it drew a distinction between owner-occupiers who face losing their home if things go wrong and buy-to-let landlords, whose properties are investments and who do not face the same risk. The Government is committed to minimising regulatory burdens to avoid imposing additional costs on businesses that would ultimately lead to higher costs for customers. As a result, unfortunately buy-to-let landlords do not benefit from the same consumer protections as mortgage borrowers taking out a mortgage on their own home.

The FCA has already acted where it can on this matter and is continuing to monitor the actions of mortgage lenders as the legal framework allows, I therefore, will not be signing my name to this EDM.

Thank you again for contacting me on this issue.

Yours sincerely
Jonathan Djanogly

Reply to the comment left by "Scott Davison" at "30/01/2014 - 16:16":

Hi Scott

Don't be angry, your MP has clearly understood, this may be a completely alien concept to him.

He is highly unlikely to be aware of the Court case of OFT vs Foxtons which went to the Court of Appeal and which agreed that a landlord can indeed be a consumer but failed to recognise when a landlord ceases to be a consumer.

Your MP has clearly failed to understand that mortgage lenders are exploiting loopholes in consumer protection. He has also failed to recognise the failings of the FCA on the bank of Ireland and is probably unaware of this too >>> http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/2005938.article?cmpid=msdaily_116742

The reason for this is that he probably has a million and one other things to deal with and can't find the time to invest into drilling into detail in a subject he has little comprehension of. Having said that, he has clearly done quite a bit of work to have been unable to write the letter he has already provided.

We need MP's like him because if we can win them over they will be our strongest allies.

To help him to understand the issues I am quite happy to speak with him on the telephone or to visit him in Westminster if he is agreeable. When your MP realises that the issue we are fighting could touch millions of voters he will perhaps take more notice.

Don't give up at the first hurdle, at least you got a relatively swift response. I received a reply to a letter I wrote to my MP in November yesterday so I can assure you, you are definitely not dealing with a bad one here, just somebody who is yet to be convinced.

Having come from a 1980's insurance sales background one of the first things that was drummed into me is that no means maybe and maybe means yes. So far it has served me well, it's the very reasons we are having this discussion, on this forum. Most people would never have started this campaign. Winners make it happen, losers let it happen.

OK, that's enough of the cheesy 80's sales hype, good luck with your crusade 🙂
.

Reply to the comment left by "Scott Davison" at "30/01/2014 - 16:16":

Another one who as the wrong end of the stick, or is he involved with West brom ?

http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/2006006.article?cmpid=msbreak_120006

Perhaps next weeks grilling of the FCA could include West broms breach of contract

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "30/01/2014 - 16:52":

You are getting too nice Mark

😉

Reply to the comment left by "Scott Davison" at "30/01/2014 - 16:16":

I forgot to add Scott, the FCA has not done all it can by any stretch of the imagination. Their response to our barristers opinion was a Whitewash, all they did was send it to the BoI and who got a QC to provide a very wishy washy response. What they should have done was to seek advice from an independent QC but instead they relied on their own staff analysis.

One option for us to consider going forwards is to fund a Judicial review of the FCA handling of the complaint. However, we need to give them a second chance before we go there. If we do proceed down that route it could be less expensive than private litigation depending upon whether the review considers the FCA to have been negligent. If they were, that might well back them into a situation where they would have to fund the legal action against BoI for us. Anyhow, I am possibly straying into potentially sensitive legal strategies now so I will say no more on this until we have our secure forum.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Dean " at "30/01/2014 - 17:06":

... and that's after just one day of rubbing shoulders with politicians! LOL
.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "30/01/2014 - 17:26":

And your new MP for Norfolk is ..........................