MSE News: Mortgage blow as building society hikes SVR

hes109

VIGILANT22 wrote: »

what???......could you pls explain the point of yr post!

Sorry you were unable to understand my point....it was directed to shortben as indicated with the 'quote'.

shortben

Surely someone must know if Nationwide has this clause.

If they do I cannot find it anywhere.

beecher2

shortben wrote: »

Thankfully I have moved to the Nationwide BMR (SVR) at the right time and my payments dropped £300+ to £560.

Fingers crossed it stays that way

Clearly it isn't going to stay that way for ever. Rates will rise at some point, so rather than worrying about whether this clause exists, you need to prepare for when base rates go up. I assume you're overpaying or saving the £300/month.

shortben

beecher2 wrote: »

Clearly it isn't going to stay that way for ever. Rates will rise at some point, so rather than worrying about whether this clause exists, you need to prepare for when base rates go up. I assume you're overpaying or saving the £300/month.

Yes, I am currently saving £900 a month. Given up drinking, nights out, expensive clothes etc etc etc

My plan is to get myself back into positive equity, which I think I may be already.

If interest rates rise significantly(+3%) AND I am confident that I can sell my property at a profit I will.

I then intend to rent for the forseeable future as I want my cash to be as fluid as possible.

jimbo5661

Is Northern Rock (the bad bank part) going to raise it's SVR too? It's already at 4.79%?? I hope not, but i have a bad felling...:(

sarahbennett

It sets a dangerous precedent for financial institutions to renege on promises. There was no mention that Base Rate itself being low or low for any length of time constitutes "exceptional circumstances." The whole point of the Skipton SVR is you pay more when the bank's base rate is higher and less when lower and never more than 3% above base rate. On March 4th Skipton CEO reiterated that Skipton had made the 3% pledge and will keep it. Since 2008 people who took out SVR loans weren't told they were taking these out in exceptional circumstances. I think Skipton are on very thin ground. A clause in a contract can be clarified but it can't be altered.

I've just set up a facebook group for affected borrowers and supporters:
It doesn't let me post the link but the group number is 309129390147 and the group is called "Skipton Building Society Mortgage Borrowers Against SVR Rise"

There's also a petition that's linked to from the group and accessible outside facebook too, let's see if I can get this down here, no www just:- "petition-dot-zedbox-dot-com"

I'd appreciate any help spreading the word. I've sent a complaint to Skipton and am awaiting their final word. If they insist on breaking their pledge I plan to take the matter to the Financial Ombudsman, FSA and if no joy there go to court for a potentially group action (please let me know if you are affected).

A banking lawyer (commenting on one of these articles) has suggested we'd have at least a 70% chance of success. I would appreciate any help and support or advice from anyone and am very interested in any legal opinions.

Thrugelmir

sarahbennett wrote: »

It sets a dangerous precedent for financial institutions to renege on promises. There was no mention that Base Rate itself being low or low for any length of time constitutes "exceptional circumstances." The whole point of the Skipton SVR is you pay more when the bank's base rate is higher and less when lower and never more than 3% above base rate. On March 4th Skipton CEO reiterated that Skipton had made the 3% pledge and will keep it. Since 2008 people who took out SVR loans weren't told they were taking these out in exceptional circumstances. I think Skipton are on very thin ground. A clause in a contract can be clarified but it can't be altered.

I've just set up a facebook group for affected borrowers and supporters:
It doesn't let me post the link but the group number is 309129390147 and the group is called "Skipton Building Society Mortgage Borrowers Against SVR Rise"

There's also a petition that's linked to from the group and accessible outside facebook too, let's see if I can get this down here, no www just:- "petition-dot-zedbox-dot-com"

I'd appreciate any help spreading the word. I've sent a complaint to Skipton and am awaiting their final word. If they insist on breaking their pledge I plan to take the matter to the Financial Ombudsman, FSA and if no joy there go to court for a potentially group action (please let me know if you are affected).

A banking lawyer (commenting on one of these articles) has suggested we'd have at least a 70% chance of success. I would appreciate any help and support or advice from anyone and am very interested in any legal opinions.

So what is your aim?

VIGILANT22

Thrugelmir wrote: »

So what is your aim?

Rebel without a cause!!
Amother one who wants to rewrite the law :rotfl:

sarahbennett

The aim is to hold Skipton accountable to its agreement to track the Base Rate maintaining the ceiling guarantee of 3% for all SVR customers. The point of bringing people together is to bring about group action against the Society if necessary to enforce the agreements.

The Society won't decrease my level of liability if I'm struggling, and won't hesitate to repossess if I can't pay. By the same token I'm not willing to increase my liability because of their misfortune and, if they insist on increasing it in contravention to our agreement, I won't hesitate to take them to court. As it happens, I don't think I'd be worse off in the event of a liquidation, sale or demutualisation event. Any purchaser would still be held to the contract. My liability would be unchanged. And, as a long standing member I've never seen any payouts of windfalls or dividends. The former CEO on the other hand was paid £1.24 million in 2008 and a £2.4 million pension. For a poor struggling society, ready to be brought down by honouring its agreement with me, that's not half bad.

A point repeatedly missed here is that borrowers who signed up for an SVR had to pay very high rates when the bank's base rate was higher. In general, SVR borrowers pay far more than borrowers on fixed deals and do much to assist savers. It's not fair to make them pay higher rates when the Base Rate is high and then decide that because it's low that you don't want to offer the guaranteed 3% tracker.

It's not be unreasonable on the other hand, to introduce a higher rate for new borrowers (as Nationwide are doing), these by contrast will not have had to pay higher rates and would be entering an honest agreement.

It's the bank's base rate itself that can be argued with for savers who want a better deal, none of whom should be supporting defrauding borrowers. I'm sure savers similarly wouldn't like guaranteed bond rates being changed mid stream. We should all hold societies to account on their promises. Allowing Skipton to get away with patently breaking a promise could set a dangerous precedent for all our financial agreements, for borrowers and savers alike.

Thrugelmir

sarahbennett wrote: »

The aim is to hold Skipton accountable to its agreement to track the Base Rate maintaining the ceiling guarantee of 3% for all SVR customers. The point of bringing people together is to bring about group action against the Society if necessary to enforce the agreements.

The Society won't decrease my level of liability if I'm struggling, and won't hesitate to repossess if I can't pay. By the same token I'm not willing to increase my liability because of their misfortune and, if they insist on increasing it in contravention to our agreement, I won't hesitate to take them to court. As it happens, I don't think I'd be worse off in the event of a liquidation, sale or demutualisation event. Any purchaser would still be held to the contract. My liability would be unchanged. And, as a long standing member I've never seen any payouts of windfalls or dividends. The former CEO on the other hand was paid £1.24 million in 2008 and a £2.4 million pension. For a poor struggling society, ready to be brought down by honouring its agreement with me, that's not half bad.

A point repeatedly missed here is that borrowers who signed up for an SVR had to pay very high rates when the bank's base rate was higher. In general, SVR borrowers pay far more than borrowers on fixed deals and do much to assist savers. It's not fair to make them pay higher rates when the Base Rate is high and then decide that because it's low that you don't want to offer the guaranteed 3% tracker.

It's not be unreasonable on the other hand, to introduce a higher rate for new borrowers (as Nationwide are doing), these by contrast will not have had to pay higher rates and would be entering an honest agreement.

It's the bank's base rate itself that can be argued with for savers who want a better deal, none of whom should be supporting defrauding borrowers. I'm sure savers similarly wouldn't like guaranteed bond rates being changed mid stream. We should all hold societies to account on their promises. Allowing Skipton to get away with patently breaking a promise could set a dangerous precedent for all our financial agreements, for borrowers and savers alike.

Have you considered that the Skipton is unable to honour its guarantees? That this move was not taken likely.


You do have an option to move to another lender. Something that many borrowers will do.