Nationwide increase monthly payments on fixed rate deal

Fuzzyness

meant to say we manage the property ourselves. the rent doesnt actually cover the mortgage as it is so a hike on this is going to hurt. we'll see what the exit fees are this time next year and if they are more than we'll have to pay until the end of the fix with the additional on top then we'll stay where we are.

Yorkie1

Vincenzo wrote: »

I think all the comments above re mortgage fraud, repossession and prison (!) are ridiculous. The worst that could conceivably happen is that Nationwide will slap some punitive charges on you (which I believe the new charges allow for).

I didn't say it was the most probable outcome, I simply said it was the worst case scenario.

The original premise was based on hypothetically dishonestly telling the lender one set of facts to obtain a particular product, knowing that set of facts to be untrue. That is fraud, a criminal offence, punishable as outlined.

Neither of us can categorically promise for sure what view the lender would take, hence the full picture - whatever the chances of a particular outcome.

Vincenzo

Yorkie1 wrote: »

I didn't say it was the most probable outcome, I simply said it was the worst case scenario.

The original premise was based on hypothetically dishonestly telling the lender one set of facts to obtain a particular product, knowing that set of facts to be untrue. That is fraud, a criminal offence, punishable as outlined.

Neither of us can categorically promise for sure what view the lender would take, hence the full picture - whatever the chances of a particular outcome.

I believe it to be so improbable that it does not even enter the realm of "worst case scenario"....

Nationwidebuster

I suggest you do the following if Nationwide Building Society imposes an additional interest rate on your fixed rate mortgage as a result of letting out the property:
Write to Nationwide and tell them that you will report this case to the Financial Ombudsman Service for the following reasons (if applicable):
Breach of contract: The Society says that they are entitled to introduce an additional letting interest of 1.5% as a result of condition xx.x. However, the Mortgage offer dated xx xxx xxxx does not mention that an additional letting interest of 1.5% could be imposed. NBS is clearly breaching its contract as a result of trying to impose this additional interest rate.
Breach of FSA Rules and Principles: Treating customers fairly (“TCQ”): TCF is central to the delivery of the FSA’s retail regulatory agenda as well as being a key part of the FSA’s move to more principle-based regulation. The FSA defined six consumer outcomes, four of which are as follows:

a) Consumers can be confident that they are dealing with firms where the fair treatment of customers is central to the corporate culture;

b) Consumers are provided with clear information and are kept appropriately informed before, during and after the point of sale; and

c) Consumers do not face unreasonable post-sale barriers imposed by firms to change product, switch provider, submit a claim or make a complaint.

The Society is not satisfying the FSA consumer outcome as defined in paragraph 11(a) of this document. I am not confident that Nationwide is a Society where the fair treatment of customers is central to the corporate culture as imposing an additional letting interest rate fee of 1.5% X years after the original mortgage agreement was signed is totally unfair especially when the original agreement did not make any mention that the Society will make this additional 1.5% interest charge. This additional interest rate fee was NOT presented in the summary of charges in the mortgage offer dated xx xxxx xxxx. During the mortgage offer meetings in xxxx, Nationwide did not ever make me aware that an additional interest rate might be payable. Furthermore, Nationwide promised me a x year fixed interest rate period. This promise has not been kept by introducing another interest rate via the “back door”. NBS is not treating me fairly.

NBS is not satisfying the FSA consumer outcome as defined in paragraph 11(b) of this document i.e. Consumers are provided with clear information and are kept appropriately informed before, during and after the point of sale. Firstly, when the mortgage offer meetings took place in xxxx, Nationwide should have made me aware of the fact that an additional interest rate fee might be payable if the property is let. Indeed, Natiowide was fully aware in xxxx that the property was let but did not mention the fact that an additional interest rate might be payable as a result. Nationwide did not even state this in the Summary of Charges. I would have entered into a mortgage agreement with another provider if Nationwide had advised me that there was a risk that an additional interest rate might be payable.Nationwide did not provide clear information on this issue and is breaching one of the FSA defined consumer outcomes.

NBS is not satisfying the FSA consumer outcome as defined in paragraph 11(c) of this document. It is impractical for me to switch provider because a significant redemption fee running into thousands of pounds would have to be paid to terminate the mortgage agreement prior to xxxx (end of the xx year fixed interest rate period).
Other information
The Parties involved in this dispute have exchanged numerous e-mail messages and held telephone conversations. The Parties involved in this dispute have not met to discuss this issue even though I have tried unsuccessfully to arrange such a meeting with the Nationwide on xx xxxx xxxx. No agreement has been reached and this case is reported to the Financial Ombudsman and legal proceedings may commence at a future date.

LindaandNicole

:jWe also were on a fixed-rate five-year rate. We were completely open about renting out the property; and paid a couple of thousand to fix our payments for five years in 2007. As!far as we were concerned when the Nationwide wrote to us in May 2010 saying they were going to impose an additional rate that was clearly breach of contract. We told them our circumstances, they sold us the product. It's just not OK for them to 'change the rules' half-way through. If we could have 'taken our business elsewhere' then we would have done - but having paid to lock into the deal, we faced early redemption charges of £2k if we left the product. After a series of phone calls to them which got nowhere between May and July 2010 I started my complaint in August. After roughly five or six letters going backwards and forwards in which they kept saying 'we can because we can'; (and some pretty silly correspondence late in the day in which they tried to extend the process by claiming not to realise that my letters were letters of complaint)' I sent the paperwork to the Financial Ombudsman. Got a result a few weeks ago - Nationwide have backed down. The story is to be featured in 'WHICH" shortly. Apparently the Nationwide have accepted that they cannot apply this to anyone who is still locked into a deal where they face ERCs if they leave. So don't pay.:T

Vincenzo

I wonder whether Nationwide expected this outcome? It seems to me that the focus has been on those in a fixed rate period whilst the issue of whether this is a fair change to the contract has been side stepped. Not a bad result for them...

Thrugelmir

Vincenzo wrote: »

I wonder whether Nationwide expected this outcome? It seems to me that the focus has been on those in a fixed rate period whilst the issue of whether this is a fair change to the contract has been side stepped. Not a bad result for them...

The issues being addressed and decided upon are in essence historical. However the outcomes may well influence future terms of CTL. No doubt other lenders are monitoring the situation closely.