MSE News: Mortgage blow as building society hikes SVR

JPS29

Mark

Good point, and that is exactly the point I was trying to make before the mudslinging started. Whatever the FSA FOS may might should would could do/have done, ultimately this story will be played out in the courts, and then maybe appealled whichever side is victorious?

howardtheduck

Good evening ladies and gentlemen. I had to amend my post on page 25 as i'd accidentally included some personal info'. The post has now been updated and the personal info' redacted.

MarkyMarkD and Vigilant22. You're welcome to read the updated post and I look forward to your "considered" response.

Please substantiate any rebuttals with the legal basis for those rebuttals. It is not enough to merely state "Know now that I, and I alone, am the law in this land!" (or words to that effect) unless supported by a little thing I like to call "evidence".

MarkyMarkD, Vigilant22, no more unsubstantiated sweeping statements no more supposition and conjecture about the nature of any (real or imaginary) discussions between the FSA/OFT/FOS and Skipton. It is (and I cannot stress this enough) IRRELEVANT to the issue of the legitimacy of the SVR pledge revocation.

Please note that I am concerned ONLY with whether or not Skipton's actions were intra vires or ultra vires.

(IANYL)

howardtheduck

MarkyMarkD,

The Financial Services Authority does not cover BTL mortgages as you rightly point out but the Office of Fair Trading does cover them.

Why did you neglect to mention that?

Is that a fact you are unaware of or are you deliberately posting misinformation?

(IANYL)

MarkyMarkD

howardtheduck wrote: »

MarkyMarkD, Vigilant22, no more unsubstantiated sweeping statements no more supposition and conjecture about the nature of any (real or imaginary) discussions between the FSA/OFT/FOS and Skipton. It is (and I cannot stress this enough) IRRELEVANT to the issue of the legitimacy of the SVR pledge revocation.

As I've already acknowledged that the FSA/FOS position won't bind the courts, I'll quite happily keep pointing out what the FSA/FOS are likely to have done or to do in the future. You may equally happily keep pointing out how you believe the courts will behave. The two are not mutually exclusive.

howardtheduck wrote: »

MarkyMarkD,

The Financial Services Authority does not cover BTL mortgages as you rightly point out but the Office of Fair Trading does cover them.

Why did you neglect to mention that?

Is that a fact you are unaware of or are you deliberately posting misinformation?

(IANYL)

Obviously not, as I have never mentioned the OFT in any of my posts other than to mention their complete failure to get the bank charges case right. I don't have any views on their involvement in this case, but if I were you I wouldn't rely on them being on my side.

sarahbennett

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

I don't have any views on their involvement in this case, but if I were you I wouldn't rely on them being on my side.

Do you think that may be because they got their fingers burnt on bank charges or another reason?

Dan_1976

howard the duck, if he failed to mention it how can he post misinformation! and please can you post in english and not that awful legal jargon that is part of the problem!

I agree with a lot you have said Markymarkd, the FSA etc would have not approved the Skiptons actions, but they would have said they dont object. The Skipton would have had this covered in as many ways as possible.

This is now for the courts to decide. Also, your right about the OFT, this is way to big for them. They will just !!!! it up like the fees case and the Skipton would walk away.

The sad truth is that the FS and banking machine is bigger than the UK's watchdogs!

howardtheduck

Dan1976, I take it you've never heard of the concept of "silent misrepresentation" e.g. in Uberrimae Fidei" (Utmost Good Faith) contracts e.g. Insurance contracts, fiduciary relationships, distortion of fact (Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd (1995) 183 CLR 563), learned falsity (Lockhart v. Osman [1981] VR 57, With v O’Flanagan [1936] Ch. 575) etc.... ?

Dan1976, despite the fact that you are uncomfortable with "legal jargon", it is going to be that same legal jargon that will decide the outcome of the subject matter that represents the very crux of this entire thread.

(IANYL)

inca_2

As a complete aside to the legal discussion etc going on I have a small request on behalf of a friend. I caught up with her the other day having not spoken to her since just after this all came out. I was absolutely disgusted at some of the stories she was telling me about. Now, I understand that people are angry, upset etc and that you are likely to relay this to the staff at the branches as the 'face' of Skipton. However, to those people who are being aggressive, threatening, extremely abusive (some of the derogatory comments being thrown at the staff are disgusting and extremely offensive) please have a word with yourself before you allow yourself to interact with other humans again?

It is not, I repeat, not, the decision of branch staff, plenty of them I'm sure will be affected by this too and they do not get paid enough to be told to 'watch their backs when they leave' be screamed at, told to f*** themselves etc etc. Neither should they be expected to put up with it. I'm not obviously directing this at anyone in particular but to anyone who may be lurking having a read on this thread that deems this acceptable behaviour, it isn't, end of story.

Dan_1976

howardtheduck wrote: »

Dan1976, I take it you've never heard of the concept of "silent misrepresentation" e.g. in Uberrimae Fidei" (Utmost Good Faith) contracts e.g. Insurance contracts, fiduciary relationships, distortion of fact (Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd (1995) 183 CLR 563), learned falsity (Lockhart v. Osman [1981] VR 57, With v O’Flanagan [1936] Ch. 575) etc.... ?

Dan1976, despite the fact that you are uncomfortable with "legal jargon", it is going to be that same legal jargon that will decide the outcome of the subject matter that represents the very crux of this entire thread.

(IANYL)

The reason I dont like legal jargon, or the the solicitors that use it, is because they keep it as complicated as they can so nobody can break up the industry. The law society is also a big joke! Dispite trying to implement clear english policy through lots of industries, property solicitors seem the only people that try to keep it simple in the legal world, and that is only client facing.

That rant over, no I have not heard of it!

But why would you expect upmost good faith from a bank or building society? I would be more supprised if I actually got upmost good faith!

howardtheduck

Dan_1976 wrote: »

The reason I dont like legal jargon, or the the solicitors that use it, is because they keep it as complicated as they can so nobody can break up the industry. The law society is also a big joke! Dispite trying to implement clear english policy through lots of industries, property solicitors seem the only people that try to keep it simple in the legal world, and that is only client facing.

That rant over, no I have not heard of it!

But why would you expect upmost good faith from a bank or building society? I would be more supprised if I actually got upmost good faith!

Your dislike of legal jargon does not detract from the fact that said legal jargon will be instrumental in deciding the legality or otherwise of Skipton's actions.

As for Uberrimae Fidei (utmost good faith), you're kinda missing the point. A contract involving Uberrimae Fidei e.g. an insurance contract, is merely an example of a situation when silence will amount to a misrepresentation. There are others e.g. fiduciary relationships.

(IANYL)