Nationwide Mortgage - new fees and charges

Thrugelmir

samwardill wrote: »

I've now got hold of the Ts & Cs. I really don't see how they can justify these changes. Their Ts & Cs say that all fees must be fair and reasonable in relation to the cost of doing the work. If a fee of zero was originally fair and reasonable what has changed to make a fee of thousands of pounds fair and reasonable?

The counter argument is that the property is now let. Why does the NW's subsidary the Mortgage Works charge higher rates for BTL mortgages than residential mortgages ? If the basis on which consent to let was granted is actually no different.

I exclude those who have let whilst working abroad for example in this instance.

samwardill

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I exclude those who have let whilst working abroad for example in this instance.

Isn't this the point? People who let their home with a residential mortgage are generally those accidental landlords who do live abroad (or otherwise are forced to live elsewhere for some time) and probably intend to return to live in their home again. Their risk profile is very different to those who buy their home to let it.

Thrugelmir

samwardill wrote: »

Isn't this the point? People who let their home with a residential mortgage are generally those accidental landlords who do live abroad (or otherwise are forced to live elsewhere for some time) and probably intend to return to live in their home again. Their risk profile is very different to those who buy their home to let it.

How many are genuinely accidental? I would hedge that majority aren't in fact, and are actually retaining the property as an investment.

Maybe those that are will be given different terms in due course.

samwardill

Thrugelmir wrote: »

How many are genuinely accidental? I would hedge that majority aren't in fact, and are actually retaining the property as an investment.

This we do not know. However there is enough of a difference between BTL vs. owner occupier switching to letting to surmise that they are not really comparable. I'd be very interested to see if Nationwide could justify that their 1.5% loading based on data from owner occupier switching to letting rather than BTL (as I think they would have to do based on the firness of charges clause in their Ts & Cs if challenged in court).

bypasser

In a letter to me the Chairman states that they are unable to provide statistical information of the differences in the risk experienced by the Nationwide between those members who let their properties and those who do not 'as it would involve in-depth analysis and ultimately will not affect the Society's decision to introduce the additional interest rate.'

samwardill

Their terms and conditions say that charges must be fair & resonable in relation to costs. If they can't prove the difference in costs how can they justify the charge?

Would you consider letting me have a copy of your chairman's letter? I'd like to include it as evidence in my Ombudsman submission.

Equaliser123

I've also made a complaint. Really cannot see the legal justification for the change. I will also proceed to the Ombudsman.

jubjub

Is everyone complaining to the Ombudsman or the FSA initially?

Equaliser123

jubjub wrote: »

Is everyone complaining to the Ombudsman or the FSA initially?

FSA doesn't have jurisdiction, does it?

Ombudsman route is the 'traditional' one although I have been less than impressed with their ability to actually understand complaints.

jubjub

I just seem to remember hearing somewhere that the FSA was the first port of call with a complaint but I don't see the point if you have to take it to the Ombudsman in the long run? Iwill be contacting them shortly as I've written to the Nationwide twice now and they have failed to answer my questions both times.