Mortgage Overpayment Disaster - Compensation?

Linuxman

Here's one:

It is our intention to pay off our mortgage ASAP. We're with one of the big guns who took over a smaller lender with whom we originally took out our mortgage.

On February 1st my wife physically paid in a £2,000 cheque from her RBS account directly to a branch of the lender as a test to see how the process worked and because we thought this would be a more direct route (shan't bother doing it this way again), and because there is very little trust between us and the bank. From a Nationwide Flex-account, we've also since electronically paid in £10,000 (as another test which worked well) and more recently, £8,000, as lump sums. In total, we wanted to pay in £20,000. However, on checking with our lenders it has since transpired that their bank branch have lost the cheque for £2,000.

It's taken a lot of work from us, revisits to the branch and hours on the phone trying to sort this out but here's the result:

They will pay the cost of cancelling the cheque (we had to ask for that and even then it was blood out of a stone) but they won't compensate us for the losses for this month in reduced monthly mortgage savings/accrued overpayment capital nor will they compensate us for ALL the time and money this has cost us sorting it out.

I'm getting everything ready for the Financial Ombudsman Service but am waiting for the bank branch to give us their refusal in writing but the nightmare is Kafkaesque: On the one hand the mortgage lending arm of the bank keeps blaming the branch end whilst the branch end keeps blaming the internal transfer process (although they tried to infer this was Royal Mail) suggesting that they are not liable to any costs. So why give us the money for stopping the cheque if they are not responsible? Surely that argument fits with any compensation claim?

We want to get away from this dreadful bank for two reasons: we were originally with them in the 90s when they mis-sold us an endowment policy and we vowed NEVER to return to them. And then, once they had taken over our alternative lender, they prevented us from moving mortgage lender (and thus house) on account that they lost our mortgage deeds for several months.

Since then, our lives have been put on hold with Dad dying under dreadful NHS circumstances (2005/6) and a long wait for an Inquest (2008/9) really throwing us off the scent.

So now we just want to get rid of these parasites and move on, but even the process of overpaying is traumatic.

Any thoughts?

dunstonh

suggesting that they are not liable to any costs. So why give us the money for stopping the cheque if they are not responsible? Surely that argument fits with any compensation claim?

I believe you will find most, if not all banks, the list external factors like lost in post as areas where they can be held liable.

It is not unusual to offer to pay any stopped cheque charge in these cases. Although most banks no longer charge for stopping a cheque that lost in the post.

Linuxman

dunstonh wrote: »

I believe you will find most, if not all banks, the list external factors like lost in post as areas where they can be held liable.

It is not unusual to offer to pay any stopped cheque charge in these cases. Although most banks no longer charge for stopping a cheque that lost in the post.

Well RBS aren't going to worry about charging us for stopping a cheque if the lender bank lost it I'd have thought. But the bank in question admit they have an internal transfer system (other than Royal Mail assumption they tried to infer before we questioned them) so why they should expect us to lose out on mortgage reduction payments because THEY lost the cheque is beyond me.

Anyway, they have told us to get lost so we're going to the FOS and see what they say. And if they don't order them to cough up, I shall take it to the Small Claims Court. We've lost out because of their error and so they can pay for it. I'm sure it's belligerence in the face of recent economic events.

If we make a mistake, they charge us! If THEY make a mistake at OUR expense we get treated like secondary scum. It's an appalling and bullying attitude to take.

Linuxman

And now we hear, record profits for Barclays with substantial bonuses for staff to be distributed.

So, the person(s) responsible for losing our cheque, losing our mortgage deeds and historically giving out incorrect information get rewarded. Whilst the victims of their systemic failures get a kick in the teeth.

Nice work if you can get it.

Oh And poor old Varley, Diamond et al - they don't get to cash in their bonuses for 7 years. And we're meant to be grateful that they refused to take them this year?

dunstonh

And now we hear, record profits for Barclays with substantial bonuses for staff to be distributed.

which has nothing to do with your complaint. Like most of the UK banks, the bulk of that profit is from outside of the UK.

So, the person(s) responsible for losing our cheque, losing our mortgage deeds and historically giving out incorrect information get rewarded.

Highly unlikely as the bonuses tend to get paid to those involved in retail sales and investments. The clerical staff tend to get much lower, if any bonuses.

Nice work if you can get it.

The average bank clerk earns less or in line with average wage. Most people would not consider that "nice work".

You really have a chip on your shoulder about this and you need to let it drop. Focus on your issues and not things that are totally unrelated.

Linuxman

Dunston H - I can assure you I have no chip on my shoulder thanks. The sort of attitude you espouse invites and foments the abuses that the banks bestow on decent hard working people. You seem to glorify in the excesses being demonstrated here.

As for the distribution of bonuses to "earns less...average wage" staff, you completely missed the point in your literal interpretation. The reward goes far beyond the physical bonuses to which you refer and has everything to do with maintaining the status quo of poor service - which in itself is part of the bonus.

And to suggest my arguments are unrelated is completely false because hierarchical management styles filter right through to the sharp end where such analogies are often discussed and put forward by the corresponding Treasury Select Committee/sub-Committee if not indeed the media looking for explanations on how wider policy affects individual borrowers and savers.

You need to stop insulting the thousands who have suffered through no fault of their own and concentrate on what it is that urges you to support and rush to the defence of your apparent friends so readily.

Ah yes, you are an "independent financial adviser", I shall reserve any further comment on what might be your raison d'être and agenda on this matter. But to ignore the fact that profits (regardless of bulk foreign related income) are clearly related to obstructive practices domestically is a notion of fantasy quite frankly.

dunstonh

You seem to glorify in the excesses being demonstrated here.

What excesses? The typical clerical bank worker isnt getting anything near what could be considered excessive.

As for the distribution of bonuses to "earns less...average wage" staff, you completely missed the point in your literal interpretation. The reward goes far beyond the physical bonuses to which you refer and has everything to do with maintaining the status quo of poor service - which in itself is part of the bonus.

The problem with service is that people dont want to pay for it any more. Not to do with bonuses.

And to suggest my arguments are unrelated is completely false because hierarchical management styles filter right through to the sharp end where such analogies are often discussed and put forward by the corresponding Treasury Select Committee/sub-Committee if not indeed the media looking for explanations on how wider policy affects individual borrowers and savers.

OK. Please tell us where the bonuses in investment banks have an impact to the staff in retail banking.

You need to stop insulting the thousands who have suffered through no fault of their own and concentrate on what it is that urges you to support and rush to the defence of your apparent friends so readily.

You need to stop insulting thousands of people who work in banks.

Banks have done many things wrong but that doesnt mean you can keep having a go at them in areas where there is no wrong doing. That doesnt mean they become "friends" of mine. Indeed, banks are my retail competitor.

Ah yes, you are an "independent financial adviser", I shall reserve any further comment on what might be your raison d'être and agenda on this matter. But to ignore the fact that profits (regardless of bulk foreign related income) are clearly related to obstructive practices domestically is a notion of fantasy quite frankly.

Given your lack of understanding on banking it is no wonder you dont understand what an IFA is either.

Linuxman

dunstonh wrote: »

Given your lack of understanding on banking it is no wonder you dont understand what an IFA is either......Indeed, banks are my retail competitor.

Absolute dross. This is a typical reaction from someone totally reliant upon the system, a financial services dependent, who, because he thinks he's not tied into a commission based hierarchy thinks he's one of the good guys. But here's the link spelt out for you. You are an IFA. Your entire raison d'être is about taking a cut on 'recommending' products created by that failed and greedy banking system or the FSS per se. The relationship between an IFA and Banking/Financial Service Industry is 100% symbiotic. I concede you might throw in a bit of altruism to get the best deal for your clients, but you don't do it to make money for them, you ultimately do it for yourself. You can try and separate out the function you perform but to me, you are in the thick of it. But then, even mortgageors are w hores to the system, pimped by successive mortgagees and governments telling us that home ownership is the correct and proper medicine to take.

The problem with service is that people dont want to pay for it any more.

Don't want to pay for it? I've paid enough stealth charges over the years thanks - especially when you consider all the mis-selling I've not been properly compensated for. Now if you worked for Which?, advised NOs and Debt advisors or other voluntary organisations then fair play - including this site, but please don't be disingenuous about IFA services. Anyway, I won't go on as the last IFA I knew lost his house, his wife and his shirt.....


...but for anyone interested, the bank in question have upheld our complaint. They agreed they lost our money. They have agreed to backdate the original paying in date as soon as our money is available to try another overpayment. They have sent us a bunch of flowers as an apology, but they ain't going to compensate us for all the time (money), worry and effort sorting this out of several weeks.

So if they need to send us a letter because we make a mistake; it's £35. But if we want to make a claim that goes way beyond a simple letter but is comparable in value (i.e. we'll take £25 for the phone calls, mileage, etc etc) it's tough ti!!ies.

To some people that might mean I've just got a chip on my shoulder. And the flowers are going back. So sorry to all those IFAs who think I'm being unreasonable. I'm not.

dunstonh

a financial services dependent, who, because he thinks he's not tied into a commission based hierarchy thinks he's one of the good guys.

Correct.

But here's the link spelt out for you. You are an IFA. Your entire raison d'être is about taking a cut on 'recommending' products created by that failed and greedy banking system or the FSS per se.

No. People buy the advice. The product is secondary. ALso, you dont find many products offered by banks being recommended by IFAs as typically the bank products are not up to much.

The relationship between an IFA and Banking/Financial Service Industry is 100% symbiotic.

You couldnt be further from the truth.

I concede you might throw in a bit of altruism to get the best deal for your clients, but you don't do it to make money for them, you ultimately do it for yourself.

And I guess you go to work for love and dont get paid.

But since I know nothing, forgive me if I don't use an IFA to point me in the right direction.

Given your lack of knowledge and totally closed mind I wouldnt wish you on any IFA.

To some people that might mean I've just got a chip on my shoulder.

Pretty obvious for all to see.

dmg24

Linuxman wrote: »

Dunston H - I can assure you I have no chip on my shoulder thanks.

Your posts would contradict this.

Could I suggest that you change your name to Paranoidman?

Linuxman

dunstonh wrote: »

Correct.



No. People buy the advice. The product is secondary. ALso, you dont find many products offered by banks being recommended by IFAs as typically the bank products are not up to much.



You couldnt be further from the truth.



And I guess you go to work for love and dont get paid.



Given your lack of knowledge and totally closed mind I wouldnt wish you on any IFA.


Pretty obvious for all to see.

You keep saying I have a "lack of knowledge". However, I suggest you're missing the point, whilst I don't get drawn in by the sales pitch that tries to distance you, and your brethren, from the very products you benefit from. The, "I will guide you into choosing the best of all evils" doesn't wash I'm afraid. And if disagreeing with you means that, according to you, I "lack knowledge" then I think the "closed mind" scenario applies to you more than it does to me.