West Bromwich Building Society Tracker Margins Legal Action

I am infuriated by the NLA which instead of joining forces with us are going it alone and presenting a complaint based on consumer legislation would you believe?!!

The NLA have not even had the common courtesy to discuss this with us despite numerous approaches from us.

I have written to them as follows, you may wish to do something similar.

Subject: Tracker Differentials

Just saw your latest article in your newsletter and linked through to the article on your website.

Why are you not working with us on this?

You are planning to make a complaint based on unfair contract terms which is completely irrelevant here as the legislation is to protect consumers, not professional investors which is what all landlords are, particularly those West Brom are targeting based on owning 3 or more properties.

We already have lawyers engaged and we have instructed Counsel to provide opinion on the legality of the West Brom actions and also our strategy.

We are 7 months ahead in our fight against Bank of Ireland. We have also raised substantial funding.

Regards ....

A link to the article on their website, which includes their email address is http://nlauk.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/what-difference-a-differential/?dm_i=11G,1WWKU,1KM4K6,6VA2U,1

PS - I have just updated our Tracker Rate Class actions Updates page (linked below)
.

Reply to the comment left by "Ian Burton" at "18/10/2013 - 15:07":

I wish I had put that as well as Ian - we are in this for EXACTLY the same reason - long term growth to provide a boost to what could very possibly (thanks to government policies) turn out to be inadequate pension arrangements - and as such and with full time and with both of us having relatively well paid jobsany profits from renting out now is entirely eaten up by taxes - and so our aim is to feed that profit back into good tenant provision and improving the properties! Denise

12 local newspapers e-mailed yesterday + Southern Landlords Association and local borough council housing officers (mentioning potential knock on effects for tenants)
Denise

It's official then - we are back in the good old days of the 'little woman'! Last week I (cheeky presumptuous woman who doesn't know her place that I am) wrote to David Cameron from myself and my partner. Today arrives a reply addressed only to my partner where inside the response goes 'Dear Mr Geeves' and then thanks HIM 'and Mrs Doms' on behalf of the PM for taking the trouble to write to him!!! Telling him (and me?) that our letter has been passed to HM Treasury for their response. I may need to reply to 10 Downing Street's Correspondence Officer to (politely and respectfully of course) enquire does equality of the sexes and emancipation means nothing to the Conservative party!

Reply to the comment left by "Nicola Everden" at "18/10/2013 - 17:10":

My wife as just a reply. Same thing send in passport or drivers licence because signature doesn't look right. Just a way of buying time I guess.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "18/10/2013 - 15:27":

Thanx for the concise update Mark, Will it itself be updated weekly say so we can all check on what we should be doing/should have done please?

Those of us like me who can only visit the forum once daily at best - often less in my case - are confronted with so many new posts every time, and growing daily, It is impossible to assimilate all the excellent stuff, great ideas, and calls to action so your update is an excellent aide memoire/check list.

I'm happy to be a foot soldier at the the Press Conference and any associated "stunt". Please give some notice of the date and maybe some options for us all?

Question I can't establish answer to, try as I have done to do so. When we all formally lodge our complaint with the Financial Ombudsman as we all will, is it true that WBBS will be obliged to pay £550 for each and every individual complaint? Or is it £550 per case they must pay for so since we are all on the same one they will only be set back £550 once? Can anyone answer this? I'm praying it is the former scenario!!

Not sure if this has been posted here.

West Bromwich are buildings a shiny new HQ building ......

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2013/05/07/first-look-at-gleaming-new-west-bromwich-building-society-hq/

We should be highlighting to all our contacts the hypocritical stance of the West Brom as often as we can....,

On the one hand they are claiming exceptional circumstances and market conditions, but on the other the are spending 10's of millions of £'s on this new HQ.

Typical greedy bankers looking after themselves.

The contempt for their customers as they continue to get paid their bonuses and salaries and building shiny new HQ buildings is disgusting and raises important questions they need to answer.

Reply to the comment left by "Common Man" at "19/10/2013 - 01:01":

The West Brom are making various claims about the increase in interest costs;

1. They say the increase is "....Uavoidable. I can assure you this decision was only made after all considerations had been taken into account and...."

We should be demanding to see these considerations.... What was considered, how was it appraised, what was the decision process ?

2. The West Brom keep saying that the T and C's enable the interest rate to be varied

"to reflect market conditions generally, and
To make sure our business is carried out prudently, efficiently and competitively"

I have a couple of points to discuss on this

A) This is a subtle point but try this.... The West Brom keep saying, "we can" change your rate because the T and Cs say we can. But the West Brom have not actually said, "we are" relying on those clauses which is why we are changing the interest rate.

There is a difference between pointing out those terms exist in the T and Cs, and actually saying we are relying on them as a basis for change.

B) The claim they make, is, the interest rate increase is required to enable them to carry out their business "prudently, efficiently and competitively".
This is quite a high test they have set themselves. Surely an action such as increasing interest rates significantly which resuts in massive additional financial liabilities for customers, would require some proof, some analysis, that without the increas, the West Brom could nt run its business prudently, efficiently and competitive....

My point is, the West Brom must have produced a detailed business plan to justify its actions. This should look at the entire west brom business, it should analyse costly of funds, new business, it should look at what alternatives were avaiilable to the West Brom.

Simply put, if they make such strong claims they should be able to prove them to the affected customers by disclosing their analysis and business plans.

I am thinking this kind of fair due process is reasonable and proportionate given they are increasing interest costs by some 300% to 400% for borrowers.

Should we not all be asking the West Brom to prove their business case for increased interest rates ?

What other cost saving measures did they consider ?

Did they consider merging with another building society ?

Did they consider shutting down and letting the mortgages run off.

Did they consider redundancies ?

Did they consider a capital restructuring on their tier 1 debt and pubs bonds ?

We should be asking for sight and evidence of this decision making process.

Would this decision making process and analysis be required under equitable legal principals ?

Reply to the comment left by "Common Man" at "19/10/2013 - 01:37":

These considerations might be valid if the challenge to WBBS were based on an obligation to treat customers in a fair and reasonable manner but they would only become relevant once it had been established that the contract permitted them to vary the premium over Bank Base Rate. My understanding is that the case will be that on a proper construction of the contract it does not give them any such permission and that the only variable part of the interest rate is BBR.

Reply to the comment left by "Common Man" at "19/10/2013 - 01:37":

You're entirely right to point out this GROSS affront, and effectively a finger to its customers facing this huge hike in interest! How insensitive and greedy can they get?

Can we not use this as part of our complaint letters, for surely it'll come across as a little crass of them, further undermining their claims of boosting profits in difficult times. The media would love this, and the hypocrisy so blatantly shown, wouldn't they?

But yes, it'd be interesting to know exactly 'how' they arrived at their decision to raise rates like this. However, I don't think we're going to get far going down this route, as it would deflect the argument, away from being 'unlawful within the agreed terms' to 'but how much should the rise be'. It'd be accepting that the process may have been correct, but the amount of increase wasn't, which to me is wholly unacceptable anyway. To my mind they can't raise their tracker rates by ANY amount. So how much isn't so much the issue, but more the fact that they shouldn't at ALL.

The rise is 143.88% (if based on a rise from BoE Base Rate + 0.89%), so I'm not sure where your figures of 300-400% come from (unless you are on a different and lower rate still?). However, whatever the rise, it's outrageous. Imagine if we landlords were to suddenly try to impose a 143% rent increase on our tenants DURING their tenancy agreement period. Well it's not much different here, where we have a 'lifetime' tracker, is it?

If they want to carry out their business 'prudently and efficiently' (and 'fairly' I might add) then why aren't they raising rates for ALL customers, instead of targeting landlords only? Imagine how much more they'd raise by doing it across the board.

However, from a 'business decision' point of view their new, in-your-face office complex, with 700 (WHAT are they all doing for goodness sake?) staff and £200 MILLION spent, this planned rise will only net them £13 million a year, which will take around 15 years to cover the £200 million. That's probably the 'average' term left on each of the buy-to-let landlord mortgages. So in effect WE are being asked (er, 'told') to pay for this gross waste of money. In other words WE would be paying for this building. NONE of this would be necessary if they had taken a more pragmatic approach to their business and not gone ahead with this new office building. THAT is where their flawed thinking comes from, and the therefore severely weakened argument AGAINST raising interest rates to a small group like this, comes from. How DARE they behave this way, passing on the cost of their decisions on others, when they were wholly unnecessary in the first place; and then unlawfully applied as a result. The whole thing stinks, and so do they!