MSE News: Mortgage blow as building society hikes SVR

de1amo

i hope when my mortgage becomes unaffordable i can envoke my private majeure using some of these arguments- they lent me too much!!
-seriously i have long thought that this case could open the floodgates for lenders to break all sorts of 'deals' on mortgages and we will return to the bad old days of no concessions and only svr mortgages--i remember being refused by my lender back in 1987-89 any sort of discount deal that new lenders were getting--my only option was to leave them and sign a new contract with another lender at great cost to me in those days-such good days!!

sarahbennett

Very cleverly, Skipton's final letters are written for the benefit of the FOS/FSA/OFT, carefully drafted to attempt to give an excuse to these organisations to not consider the complaint, by asking you to consider if you are a consumer for example, that removes you from the remit of the free support, it gives the bodies an excuse not to consider our case, and in the context of being under resourced, one they might grab with both hands, very clever tactics on behalf of Skipton...

Thrugelmir

sarahbennett wrote: »

Very cleverly, Skipton's final letters are written for the benefit of the FOS/FSA/OFT, carefully drafted to attempt to give an excuse to these organisations to not consider the complaint, by asking you to consider if you are a consumer for example, that removes you from the remit of the free support, it gives the bodies an excuse not to consider our case, and in the context of being under resourced, one they might grab with both hands, very clever tactics on behalf of Skipton...

I would be interested to know the legal definition of a "trade" as it's interesting that people wish to be treated as consumers in terms of the law. If anyone would like to comment.

PhylPho

Hopefully no-one here is placing any faith in FOS where Skipton is concerned.

As a result of a complaint from us about Skipton's conduct in a different regard, FOS -- prior to issuing a written judgment to us -- telephoned to say that:

(a) the FOS understands your complaint

(b) the FOS has every sympathy with your complaint

(c) unfortunately, the FOS cannot persuade Skipton to apologise, retract, or compensate because the FOS has no power to tell a financial services provider how to run its business.

So that's all right, then.

The_Dentist

PhylPho wrote: »

Hopefully no-one here is placing any faith in FOS where Skipton is concerned.

As a result of a complaint from us about Skipton's conduct in a different regard, FOS -- prior to issuing a written judgment to us -- telephoned to say that:

(a) the FOS understands your complaint

(b) the FOS has every sympathy with your complaint

(c) unfortunately, the FOS cannot persuade Skipton to apologise, retract, or compensate because the FOS has no power to tell a financial services provider how to run its business.

So that's all right, then.

Interesting. Are you willing to provide more details?

I would like to think that this case is slightly different. Many posters on this forum have complained that this is not the way to run a business (although I don't think I have ever posted that myself). However in this case most people in the against SVR hike camp believe that there is a fundamental problem with the Society's ability to do as it pleases with its SVR. I can't predict with accuracy what the Ombudsman will do, but if the Ombudsman was so minded, ordering a financial services provider to reconstruct a loan account in a different manner and in accordance with a contract does appear to be well within the Ombudsman's powers.

Dan_1976

sarahbennett wrote: »

Very cleverly, Skipton's final letters are written for the benefit of the FOS/FSA/OFT, carefully drafted to attempt to give an excuse to these organisations to not consider the complaint, by asking you to consider if you are a consumer for example, that removes you from the remit of the free support, it gives the bodies an excuse not to consider our case, and in the context of being under resourced, one they might grab with both hands, very clever tactics on behalf of Skipton...

Would you not write carefully to protect your case?

This will only be decided in a court of law. I think FOS, FSA or the OFT will stay clear of this. I dont blame them.

Is the claus the issue or the proof that we are in exceptional circumstances?

PhylPho

The_Dentist wrote: »

Interesting. Are you willing to provide more details?

I would like to think that this case is slightly different. Many posters on this forum have complained that this is not the way to run a business (although I don't think I have ever posted that myself). However in this case most people in the against SVR hike camp believe that there is a fundamental problem with the Society's ability to do as it pleases with its SVR. I can't predict with accuracy what the Ombudsman will do, but if the Ombudsman was so minded, ordering a financial services provider to reconstruct a loan account in a different manner and in accordance with a contract does appear to be well within the Ombudsman's powers.

The problem resides in your very own phrase: "what appears" to be within the Ombudsman's powers.

What appears to be is sadly quite different from what the Ombudsman then decides to say what actually is.

Our particular complaint related to a particular type of wording deployed by Skipton in one of its earlier accounts. The wording was not so much ambiguous as downright misleading. And allowed Skipton to do as it pleased.

So. . . The Ombudsman *understood* why we were complaining. And, on the telephone at least, the Ombudsman *sympathised.*

For the record, however, the Ombudsman told us that the, er, Ombudsman really can't interfere in how a business runs its business so long as its practises are not (blatantly) illegal.

In this particular issue, and if the Ombudsman is involved, the outcome wouldn't depend on mere 'appearance' but on blatant appearance.

The qualifier is important.

It's the kind of thing that lets operators like Skipton off the hook. And the Ombudsman from having to lock horns when it would infinitely prefer life to be smooth and trouble-free.

For itself.

The_Dentist

The_Dentist wrote: »

some people might even say making such a misleading statement is a criminal offence

s. 397 FSMA 2000 (misleading statements and practices)

I have received a nice letter from the Head of Compliance at Skipton denying that an approved person (the Chief Executive) made a misleading statement in March 2009 contrary to s.397 FSMA 2000. This is based on the defence that the statement was made in good faith.

I have made the same complaint to the FSA. They have acknowledged and have sent a further letter indicating they are still thinking about it.

(I don't hold out much hope on this point)

howardtheduck

"In proceedings brought under S397 FSMA 2000, it is a defence to show that:

The accused reasonably believed that his act or conduct would not create an
impression that was false or misleading.

The accused acted in conformity with the price stabilising rules or control of
information rules."

Sadly I don't think Cutter will be held to account under s.397 as he will simply claim "reasonable belief".

sarahbennett

howardtheduck wrote: »

"In proceedings brought under S397 FSMA 2000, it is a defence to show that:

The accused reasonably believed that his act or conduct would not create an
impression that was false or misleading.

The accused acted in conformity with the price stabilising rules or control of
information rules."

Sadly I don't think Cutter will be held to account under s.397 as he will simply claim "reasonable belief".

AFAIK IANAL s397 mainly applies to market manipulation, designed to prevent issues like insider trading etc.., I don't think it really applies to this, however something else may apply ?