Chelsea mortgage rate?

samsuka

ILW wrote: »

Who told you that?

My mortgage broker!! While he also advised that it would not track it 100%, he did indicate that it would fall if the BoE rate falls. And to be honest, for the most part he is right.

According to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7872344.stm most banks / building societies have cut their rates, with the majority cutting by at least 2%. It just seems to bad luck that i have mortgages with the worst one. Its an issue i am taking up with my mortgage provider at the moment!!!

MarkyMarkD

If your mortgage adviser told you that, in writing, then he is a numpty and he is liable to compensate you*. It is complete rubbish to claim that, for any particular SVR, it will always fall if BBR falls. There have often been times for almost any lender where they have chosen to delay or combine SVR cuts following BBR cuts, or to skip them entirely.

* although I'm not sure exactly how you would calculate the compensation due, based on such a vague "indication".

Funnily enough at work today I heard a member of staff say that SVR "would go up and down when base rate changed". Obviously I sent them for some urgent re-training.

But at the end of the day, the KFI is king and what it says goes. If you have a regulated mortgage which says that the rate is the lender's standard variable rate, you will never win any complaint against the lender if they sold on a non-advisory basis. IMHO.

Neither would you win a claim against a mortgage broker, for recommending a Chelsea discount over another lender's discount, as there was no means of predicting that Chelsea would maintain a higher SVR than many.

The single basis for any claim would be an indication that the product would in some way track BBR - even in a loose way. But that's not easy to prove, and I bet you don't have it in writing.

samsuka

sanatogen wrote: »

It sounds like they've decided to pocket the difference.

Understandable, but annoying.

I'm able to leave without penalty, so if therer are good deals out there I'll move.

A youtube video asking why Chelsea havent dropped their rates wont go amiss either.

According to my broker, one route you can go down is send them and/or the FSA an email reminding them of a FSA directive called "Treating Customers Fairly", i.e. pointing out that they haven't cut their SVR in line with their competitors and are they treating their existing customers fairly. Its a long shot but could be worth a try.

Ta

S

dwsjarcmcd

samsuka wrote: »

According to my broker, one route you can go down is send them and/or the FSA an email reminding them of a FSA directive called "Treating Customers Fairly", i.e. pointing out that they haven't cut their SVR in line with their competitors and are they treating their existing customers fairly. Its a long shot but could be worth a try.

That is the last approach that will work. They will just replay that TCF covers all their customers and they have to balance the needs of savers, so they are considering any rate changes against that background. Sorry, your broker is wrong to suggest a TCF approach.

samsuka

dwsjarcmcd wrote: »

That is the last approach that will work. They will just replay that TCF covers all their customers and they have to balance the needs of savers, so they are considering any rate changes against that background. Sorry, your broker is wrong to suggest a TCF approach.

He did say it was a long shot.

But is that not dependent on them actually benefitting their savers as well? From looking at best buy savings rates, they aren't especially good rates compared to competitors with lower SVR's, so they aren't helping borrowers or savers, only themselves. So does TCF still not cover them?

Thanks

S

dwsjarcmcd

Yes it does cover them and there approach to the savers rates would be 'well it's as much as we can afford, think what it would be if we reduced our SVR further!'

samsuka

dwsjarcmcd wrote: »

Yes it does cover them and there approach to the savers rates would be 'well it's as much as we can afford, think what it would be if we reduced our SVR further!'

So they are still treating savers better than they are treating borrowers, so does TCF still not apply? I guess the point is you can't treat everyone fairly in their eyes, but we can only compare them to their peers, especially Building Societies, who all also operate on a saver basis, but many of which have cut their rates much further.

Every argument that they have come back with has not stood up when compared with their peers, many of whom are under similar pressures.

ILW

samsuka wrote: »

So they are still treating savers better than they are treating borrowers, so does TCF still not apply? I guess the point is you can't treat everyone fairly in their eyes, but we can only compare them to their peers, especially Building Societies, who all also operate on a saver basis, but many of which have cut their rates much further.

Every argument that they have come back with has not stood up when compared with their peers, many of whom are under similar pressures.

I think the bottom line is you should have gone with a tracker, live with it.

dwsjarcmcd

samsuka wrote: »

Every argument that they have come back with has not stood up when compared with their peers, many of whom are under similar pressures.

You can't say that unless you know their financial position. Many of their peers are not under the same pressures because they didn't have the exposures to Iceland that the Chelsea had.

samsuka

ILW wrote: »

I think the bottom line is you should have gone with a tracker, live with it.

Well duh... Thanks for the insightful, helpful comment. I don't think the forum would be much help if we all did what we should have done in hindsight would it now!!