MSE News: Mortgage blow as building society hikes SVR

MarkyMarkD

Everything seems to have gone rather quiet on the FOS/FSA/legal front in this case.

Strangely enough, the FSA were all talk when Halifax wanted to apply a floor in their small print which they hadn't included in their KFIs.

But now, they are all silent.

But Sarah doesn't believe that FSA pre-approved this change in Skipton's policy.

JPS29

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

But Sarah doesn't believe that FSA pre-approved this change in Skipton's policy.

Maybe that's because they have never said they have approved this. I'm not saying they haven't. Just that no one on here can 100% post that it has been agreed without a statement from the FSA or Skipton confirming this. Anything else is just guesswork

howardtheduck

inca wrote: »

Extremely long constant postings from the same poster full of legal jargon and case studies etc make me switch off from that person's posts to be honest and jsut skip through most if it and I would be surprised if I'm the only one. I appreciate that if you are in the profession it will be natural for you to do this it just doesn't read simply enough for someone like me who isn't in the legal business. This isn't because I am stupid, I'm actually fairly intelligent IMO but it is just too much to wade through. I can read Sarah's posts whether I agree or disagree with them because they are making a point without all of the waffle.

Also you need to remember that this is a forum, where people will express and share opinions, which means that as they are often thoughts or opinions they do not need to be backed by hard evidence.We are on a web forum here not in a court of law. If and when this does go to court then yes facts and evidence will obviously be needed but as this is a discussion can we just please stop with the evidence demanding and can you make your point easier to understand for the simple folk such as myself? thankyou kindly

No problem Inca. I'll be sure to "dumb it down" for the benefit of all those posters who wish to do nothing more than, what's the vernacular, oh yes, "shoot the sh*t" on here.

If you want pointless chit-chat and the expression of thoughts and opinions by readers of 'The Sun', you're better off watching daytime drivel like The Jeremy Kyle Show.

To the silent majority, if you wish to LEARN SOMETHING SUBSTANTIVE in respect of the subject matter of this thread, read my posts. If on the other hand you want to read completely unsubtantiated and unmeritorious b*ll*cks, read Vigliant22's, Thrugelmir's, and MarkyMarkD's posts.

MarkyMarkD

JPS29 wrote: »

Maybe that's because they have never said they have approved this. I'm not saying they haven't. Just that no one on here can 100% post that it has been agreed without a statement from the FSA or Skipton confirming this. Anything else is just guesswork

But that's simply how the FSA works. They don't go round saying what they have allowed a particular bank or building society to do. They sometimes publicise what they have NOT allowed them to do - as they did with Halifax.

MarkyMarkD

Someone (many posts ago) has quoted objective evidence that the FSA are satisfied that Skipton has acted fairly:

danmck wrote: »

I don't doubt Ruth's point that the FSA have approved this, or to be precise are 'satisfied the Skipton has acted fairly'

Dan_1976

LOL, I read the Independent, Times or the odd Telegraph, but I find your posts dull and to long.

inca_2

No problem Inca. I'll be sure to "dumb it down" for the benefit of all those posters who wish to do nothing more than, what's the vernacular, oh yes, "shoot the sh*t" on here.

If you want pointless chit-chat and the expression of thoughts and opinions by readers of 'The Sun', you're better off watching daytime drivel like The Jeremy Kyle Show.

To the silent majority, if you wish to LEARN SOMETHING SUBSTANTIVE in respect of the subject matter of this thread, read my posts. If on the other hand you want to read completely unsubtantiated and unmeritorious b*ll*cks, read Vigliant22's, Thrugelmir's, and MarkyMarkD's posts

What patronising and obnoxious twaddle, I'm not even going to waste my time on explaining the ridiculousness of the above statement to a dogmatic ego-maniac with a misguided superiority complex. At least you have given me a good laugh, thanks Howard

pwllbwdr

Indeed it is extremely pompous for one person to spout legalese to lay people and expect them to "learn" from it. I've seen barristers in action, and the most striking thing for me is that you can hear entirely contradictory legal arguments from opposing sides' Counsel which both quote precedent and are both (to a layman) highly convincing. So why should we just accept yours?

sarahbennett

Arguments do need to be very convincing to a layman. If our arguments are poorly prepared within our case, we're unlikely to win by reference to other cases.

This means we need to go back to the arguments that we are trying to make. Why, in layman's terms do we feel we have been unfairly treated? etc...

I think many people on here are satisfied we've done the precedent bit, but not, successfully, the arguments bit, and some may be rather scratching their heads at how anyone with an SVR at under 5% can feel hard done by? (playing devil's advocate here). Most people struggling with their savings are completely fed up with hearing any borrowers whine, and a lot of people are struggling with understanding whether we are right or the mortgage company are right. And how, if the mortgage company are really wrong, would the FSA let them have got away with it. Intuition may suggest that the mortgage company must be right or (1) the FSA etc would not have let them get away with it, and (b) their lawyers would have told them not to do it....

MarkyMarkD

I agree, Sarah.

At the very least, (and I know others will accuse me of speculating without knowledge, and in this case, they are quite right ), Skipton will have received counsel's opinion that they are at least more likely than not to win any legal fight on this. To have gone ahead without that would be ridiculous and their Board of directors would not have approved it.

And, similarly, the FSA will have demanded to see that counsel's opinion before letting Skipton proceed, and may indeed have got their own counsel's opinion if push came to shove.

So, we have expert opinion on both sides, saying that the other side is wrong. Such are many legal battles!

But, in this case, (once again, like many others), Skipton have deeper pockets and far more to lose than any individual borrower or even any group of borrowers.

And the Government (OFT or whoever) are unlikely to pursue such a claim because, whatever the borrowers may say, it is NOT in the public interest for Skipton to go bust, and that's what will happen if they lose this case. It's not in the public interest, because the loss at Skipton will end up being borne by the FSCS and hence by other financial institutions who are already suffering from the previous calls on the FSCS.

So: deep pockets at Skipton vs shallow pockets and no government support on the borrowers' side. I know which side I'd place my bet on.

All the above is without any consideration of the legal and moral rights and wrongs, but I think it's a realistic assessment of what's likely to happen.