West Bromwich Building Society Tracker Margins Legal Action

Hello All

To a very great extent we are in uncharted waters here.

Around £4,000 has been contributed to a marketing fund to raise awareness of the actions of WBBS and BoI. Most of this money has been donated by people who are not affected but has been donated on the basis that increased awareness may prevent other lenders from following suit.

On the other hand, Justin has confirmed that over £40,000 has been contributed by borrowers directly affected by the WBBS decision. I have one affected mortgage so I don't think I am in a position to decide what the two groups should do if and when options are on the table.

If 90% of the funds raised are from people who vote for a confidential settlement with WBBS will that bind the other 10% to accept too? I don't think it will. I suggest we cross that bridge if/when we get to it. My fear is that contributors now have two sets of agenda's. The crusader in me says we should not settle, the businessman in me says we should at least consider it. The worrier in me says this could be the end of the line. Since this discussion started last week new interest levels in the campaign have dropped off a cliff.

What if this is the position a month from now?

1) The barristers opinion is positive
2) Half want to litigate, half want to settle
3) More money is required to litigate, no more money is required to attempt to negotiate a settlement.

The thoughts and potential outcomes are doing my head in.

Would we split into two groups?

The mind boggles!
.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "28/10/2013 - 10:04":

The programme was repeated several times on the BBC News channel over the weekend but I was disappointed that it was only a one liner from the landlady that even mentioned the possibility that the lenders' actions were in breach of contract. The whole thrust came over as a complaint that they were unfairly relying on a condition hidden in the "small print". Every article that I have seen also seems to assume that they are entitled to take this action, however unfair or reprehensible it might be, which is exactly what WBBS and BOI have been saying throughout and want everyone to believe. Starting the argument from that point is playing right into their hands. This in my opinion is nothing more than blatant propaganda on their part and needs to be challenged whenever possible, so the news item was a missed opportunity. Their refusal to engage in reasoned discussion with their customers about the true meaning of the contract coupled with their veiled threats to call in the mortgage of anyone who dares to disagree with them is evidence that they are unable to sustain their position other than by aggressive bullying, scaring off the opposition and convincing everyone by constant repetition that the contract wording allows them to increase the premium.

Reply to the comment left by "ian " at "28/10/2013 - 11:21":

Hi Ian

Re your comment "If this Web site attracts nearly 200,000 readers surly they could be kind enough to donate as little as a £1 each towards the campaign ??"

Wouldn't that be wonderful hey?

Sadly it doesn't work like that. Do you read every page in the newspaper you purchase or do you just read a few articles which take your interest? Do you donate £1 to every call for help from charities you see on TV and in the newspaper?

If you do then I can assure you that you are a minority. The readers of Property118 are representative of the rest of the world, they read what catches their attention and they only contribute to things they feel passionately about. They SHOULD feel passionately about this because they could be affected by something similar one day but I can't force people to do anything.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "28/10/2013 - 11:40":

Mark

My understanding was that your request for the marketing fund had a modest target and so we contributed funds to reflect that. We don't know what might be raised.

I suggest that you give a new call for funds nearer the time of the litigate vs settle decision. We'll then know how much will be needed to be in a position to litigate and we can vote with our wallets.

Reply to the comment left by "Annette Stone" at "28/10/2013 - 11:39":

Hi Annette

If we had asked for £10 I reckon we would have raised no more than a few hundred pounds by now.

If it was that easy to raise money every collection box for every charity would have millions in it.

I have asked people many times to stop emailing and calling Justin but when they make a payment they feel entitled to do so. This wastes the fund as we are paying £250 an hour for Justin's time!

I have to admit to beginning to wish somebody else had organised this and all I had to do was chip in my £240.

It really is incredibly frustrating, especially now that opinions have become divided as we begin to make progress
.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "28/10/2013 - 11:40":

If there was no chance of more money, then you would have to settle, there is no other sensible option.....but it doesn't seem right....WBBS will have got away with it and more than likely it will lead to others thinking they can increase differential rates too. The bully wins.

If there is any way to raise more cash..let's do it! Easier said than done

If as Mark says there re nearly 1000 signed up we only need a third of those people to pay and we will almost be there for a decent fighting fund

If all pay their money then there will be more than enough to take it to Court and put up a very decent battle.

Ideally I think we would all like to see a Court case through and won to stop other lenders trying this on. But if WB offer a guarantee to all those named who have paid their money that they will effectively stick to the original agreement then unless the fund is so large and counsels opinion is that we can not lose then we have to accept it.

For those who have sat on the sidelines and not paid then really they only have themselves to blame.

For those who have contributed but do not have WB mortgages they should be commended and hopefully no other lenders that effect those people will try this on. If they do then we all need to re visit this site and help in the next fight. I think you will find who ever the next lender is to try this on many of us will have loans with them . However, if you have benefitted from the WB fight and are not affected next time do the right thing and make an effort not just to pay a contribution but to get others involved .

I think you have to cross bridges when you get to them, not debate what the bridge may look like when you get there. (My quote of the day!).

All you can do for now is keep up the campaign.

What is odd is why so many people do not get involved in actions like this even when their own welfare is at stake. I am quite intrigued by that from the point of view of understanding human psychology, as much as anything else.

Perhaps they are not aware of the campaign which I think unlikely for the majority. I think there may be other reasons - perhaps they fear they may be somehow black balled in the future from getting credit. (That would not happen by the way) or perhaps people see mortgage cos as their betters and want to obey orders.

It is all rather odd and something I will research when I get some time.

David Lawrenson
http://www.LettingFocus.com

Reply to the comment left by "Dean Turner" at "28/10/2013 - 12:22":

Seems like a realistic approach to me Dean.

As for Mark's frustration I can only echo his feelings. After many weeks of dynamic, innovative and dedicated campaigning less than 3% (more likely 1.5% given an average of 2 mortgages per participant) have actually written a cheque to support the class action. If we don't have the funds we're playing poker with empty pockets against an opponent with a lousy hand but unlimited funds. He knows we'll have to fold.

Therefore a minimum of 97% of people (6500) have not paid/supported the class action. Perhaps they don't know of our campaign? Given the financial consequences of the WB's action I would have thought more than a cursory Google search would be warranted to reveal our activities.

My solution? Create the WB 250 - therefore room for another 50'ish mortgages to join. We all send a cheque for another £1k (plus VAT) per mortgage to Justin who now has a quarter of a million pounds to play the game with.

£1k per mortgage - ridiculous! Actually less than 3% of the "extra" I will have to pay - and that's before the next possible increases.

Like Dean I pledge to support all those who have supported us. Organise your class action via Justin and I'll contribute as you have to this fund.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "28/10/2013 - 11:40":

I think you are jumping the gun on this and whilst there may be no problem in airing the arguments about the legal basis of the case, it is not a good idea to discuss tactics and anticipated procedural problems openly.
The basis on which individuals have contributed and for what purpose should be made clear to them - I understood that the plan was to obtain counsel's advice and proceed from there i.e the initial commitment was to fund the case to that point at an estimated cost of £15,000 after which decisions would be taken by those concerned about the best way forward.
I assume that counsel will advise not only on the strengths and weaknesses of the case but also the procedural issues including how decisions should be made, from whom Justin should receive instructions and whether everyone who decides to proceed would be bound by the views of the majority.
The question of how best to achieve the desired result is key, but clarity as to what that result looks like is also essential. If it is decided to bring a test case with a view to obtaining a declaration that WBBS are not entitled to increase the premium it is difficult to see how this would lend itself to compromise. This pathway would possibly attract more support from those not directly affected as, if successful, a precedent would then be set that would deter other lenders from following suit. Any other form of action is likely to be supported only by those who have a direct financial interest.