Nationwide Mortgage - new fees and charges

Thrugelmir

Tank7 wrote: »

I am not going to get into a slanging match with you but I am not sure how, due to the falling house prices, etc you seem to think I saw an opportunity to make a profit by keeping it through all the doom and gloom and falling house prices! I would have made more had I sold it when I first rented it out!!

Hindsight with any form of investment is a wonderful thing. My holding in BP shares isn't performing very well either at the moment. But it was my decision so I accept the consequences good or bad.

Tank7

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Hindsight with any form of investment is a wonderful thing. My holding in BP shares isn't performing very well either at the moment. But it was my decision so I accept the consequences good or bad.

Please don't even start me on share prices, that's a whole other story! Like you we all make decisions, good or bad, if I had known what I know now when I was 19 I would have been buying houses and not getting loans to quench my thirst for motorcycling but there you go, as you say Hindsight, during life in general, is a wonderful thing. :beer:

Poppy_Kennedy

Hey all

I am very against them charging a 1.5% fee to existing customers and should do it for people who want to let from now on. Its their fault in the first place for granting permission to lets without adding on any extra charge – you cant just suddenly go back on your word.

Nationwide are not justified in making this charge in my opinion especially to those who have long term fixed mortgages of say 5% and now will be with an interest rate of 6.5%.

Anyway. There is another thread regarding this but I phoned up a few times and basically if you put your permission to let in before September 2010 you will NOT be charged the 1.5% increase.

I have been renting for over 3 years and you are supposed to re-apply every three years which I never knew, so I have just reapplied for another 3 years tenancy and its been accepted its also on record that the 1.5% charge will not be applied to me as I have done this before Sept 2010.

I spoke to two customer service people who were very adamant that I WOULD be charged but I asked them to speak with their manager and they did and came back saying that I would not be charged.

They obviously haven’t told their customer service team this as to ensure that everyone gets stuck with this increase.

cheekymuppet

hi Poppy

I just spoke to Nationwide this morning, and they guy I spoke to put me on hold and spoke to his supervisor, and I was informed that we would STILL have to pay the extra 1.5% even if we got the CTL form in before September. My wife has just spoken to the Nationwide complaints team and they've said exactly the same thing, its within the contract to increase the interest fee, and we will have to pay it.

I'm still looking into this, but unfortunately, I'm not 100% convinced that getting a CTL is enough here.

Poppy_Kennedy

Hi there

I called back again the other day just to confirm and it is in my records that the 1.5% will no apply to me she also told me again on the phone that it wouldn’t. I also wrote a letter to them confirming this conversation I had although they haven’t written back.

This all seems a complete shambles doesn’t it – people being told different things – seems they have gotten themselves in to a bit of a mess.

If I were you I would write to Nationwide and say that you know for a fact that others have been told different.

What a mess!!

Tank7

Poppy_Kennedy wrote: »

Hi there

I called back again the other day just to confirm and it is in my records that the 1.5% will no apply to me she also told me again on the phone that it wouldn’t. I also wrote a letter to them confirming this conversation I had although they haven’t written back.

This all seems a complete shambles doesn’t it – people being told different things – seems they have gotten themselves in to a bit of a mess.

If I were you I would write to Nationwide and say that you know for a fact that others have been told different.

What a mess!!

Hi Poppy Kennedy

Could you tell us all which number you called and the name of the manager you spoke to? If we all have this information we can inundate them with calls and get the same confirmation you have as it is only right that they apply the same agreement to all who have let out for 3 years or more.

I am sure NW will be in a real situation if they allow some to get away with it while no applying to all others in a similar postion.

Poppy_Kennedy

Hey –

I cant remember the girls name (at home on a bit of paper)

My first call the girl was adamant I would have to pay.

I then called again after people on this thread were saying they didn’t have to pay if they applied before Sept 2010. I ask her to double check with her manager and she said she would check with the admin department who then confirmed I wouldn’t have to pay 1.5% - she put it on record and as mentioned, I called again to clarify and wrote a letter confirming the conversation.

I called the number that was on the leaflet we got sent confirming the new charges.

They cannot tell me one thing and you another its just unfair – I think its terrible.

There is obviously a loophole but havent informed their staff so that people are stuck with the charge – you should keep on and make them check with the admin department

Good luck!

Tank7

OK Poppy Kennedy I will keep at them and see what response I get.

I suppose this could end in tears for those who have been told they don't have to pay as those of us who have not had that confirmed yet will keep on and on saying why have some been told the new 'fee' does not apply to some people and eventually they may turn round in the end and say, enough now this is the ruling and everyone has to pay the 1.5%, and it will mess it up for the lucky few, still as your say it is unfair so will keep on at them.

Fingers x indeed

stamper

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The granting of CTL is at the discretion of the lender. Within that granting ( or offer to grant) they are within their rights to amend the terms of the original contract as they think fit within reason. The acceptance of the terms is then a matter for the borrower.

The FSA would hardly rule that a rate of 3.99% is detrimental to the borrower when the Nationwides own BTL subsidary, the Mortgage Works cheapest borrowing rate is higher than this.

The Nationwide would have taken counsel prior to implementing this change.

Thrugelmir,

I don't

stamper

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The granting of CTL is at the discretion of the lender. Within that granting ( or offer to grant) they are within their rights to amend the terms of the original contract as they think fit within reason. The acceptance of the terms is then a matter for the borrower.

The FSA would hardly rule that a rate of 3.99% is detrimental to the borrower when the Nationwides own BTL subsidary, the Mortgage Works cheapest borrowing rate is higher than this.

The Nationwide would have taken counsel prior to implementing this change.

Thrugelmir,

I don't know what your background is - it's quite possible you have qualifications in contract law - you certainly state things above as if they were fact. Personally, I'm just an interested amateur.

You state above that the company has the right to amend the original contract. Specifically, which right is it that you speak of? What gives them this right, as there is nothing in the contract AFAIK that suggests they can change it. If the company has the right, do I also have the equivalent right to change the contract as I 'see fit within reason'? If so, I'd like to reduce the fixed rate because my LTV is now much lower than previously therefore I represent less risk.

Secondly, I strongly suspect that the FSA has nothing whatsoever to say about whether the original rate was attractive compared to others in the market. The Unfair Terms legislation, by my amateur interpretation, is purely to do with whether the wording in the contract creates an imbalance of power to the detriment of the consumer. It doesn't talk about whether the consumer or company should have agreed in the first place.

On the last point, I'm quite sure you're right that Nwide has the advice of legal experts. However, history is full of examples (and recent ones in the banking sector) of companies finding that their legal advice did not stand up in court. I hope this is one of those times.

As many people rely on advice from this forum, it would help if you state the basis of your statements of fact or state that they are opinions only. You might just be right, but it's impossible to say based on the information you've so far given.