Nationwide Mortgage - new fees and charges

fozzeh

Ah, as you say, it isn't a complaint that hasn't occured but it is likely and probably will occur.

I agree in the sense that there isn't a current complaint about the fee (as such) but more about what is the likely outcome if this happens to him (and others in the future). If this one case sets a president for others and saves other adjudicators time down the line, it will save more money than it would cost.

As this is a fairly new implication (initiated around May and effective from September), this could get quite a bit of attention.

And to say it would save the taxpayers money? Easy; dock it off some person with 15 kids living off the state, (i.e. mine, yours and our next door neighbours') earnings. I'd rather an adjudicator who has worked to gain knowledge to get a job get my notes.

samwardill

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Registering a complaint about an event which hasn't even occured is just wasting peoples time (and the tax payers money).

For the record. The cost of an ombudsman investigation is paid for by the bank against whom the complaint is raised and not the taxpayer.

Thrugelmir

fozzeh wrote: »

I agree in the sense that there isn't a current complaint about the fee (as such) but more about what is the likely outcome if this happens to him (and others in the future). If this one case sets a president for others and saves other adjudicators time down the line, it will save more money than it would cost.

You are overlooking the basic fact that consent to let is discretionary on the part of the lender. Not an automatic right contained in the mortgage offer or contract.

Vincenzo

Thrugelmir wrote: »

You are overlooking the basic fact that consent to let is discretionary on the part of the lender. Not an automatic right contained in the mortgage offer or contract.

Consent to let is included in the contract. It states that consent will not be unreasonably withheld (let's not get into the definition of reasonable again!)

The terms do not however mention extra charges as a result of consent. Many other mortgage companies do so in their terms.

The argument is that the t&cs have been changed. I am not familiar with the complaints procedure but I don't see why a borrower must first incur a loss before making a complaint? The complaint is that the terms of the loan have been unfairly amended.

Thrugelmir

samwardill wrote: »

For the record. The cost of an ombudsman investigation is paid for by the bank against whom the complaint is raised and not the taxpayer.

Not all complaints are chargeable.

The FSA levies fees on all financial organisations. These fees are passed back to consumers within the cost of the product.

NW's 2009 profits were more or less halved by the increased charges. Some additional £200 million pounds. In simple terms the total FSA levies add around .25% on all of the NW's lending.

Part of the reason that lenders are making money from any available avenue.

Thrugelmir

Vincenzo wrote: »

The complaint is that the terms of the loan have been unfairly amended.

They haven't been unfairly amended. As no consent to let has been granted and agreed by both parties. So there's been no amendment to contractual terms.

A different situation to where it already has.


What you are suggesting is that any change of interest rate could therefore be challenged as unfair.

Consent to let is included in the contract. It states that consent will not be unreasonably withheld (let's not get into the definition of reasonable again!)

Would still be reviewed on a case by case basis. Even in the event of a complaint. As there are different circumstances. No carte blanche.

Unlikely that one upheld compliant will create a precedent. As one previous poster suggested.

Vincenzo

Thrugelmir wrote: »

They haven't been unfairly amended. As no consent to let has been granted and agreed by both parties. So there's been no amendment to contractual terms.

A different situation to where it already has.

What you are suggesting is that any change of interest rate could therefore be challenged as unfair.

No - you seem to be suggesting you enter into an entirely new contract with CTL. That is not the case. The standard T&Cs cover CTL. Under that contract, no extra fees are payable. Now they are. I consider that a change to my contractual terms.

Thrugelmir

Vincenzo wrote: »

No - you seem to be suggesting you enter into an entirely new contract with CTL. That is not the case. The standard T&Cs cover CTL. Under that contract, no extra fees are payable. Now they are. I consider that a change to my contractual terms.

An amendment to terms (or side letter) is often used to change contractual terms. No need for a new contract.

Consult a solicitor and take direct action against the NW if you believe that they have contravened their own T&C's.

Vincenzo

Thrugelmir wrote: »

An amendment to terms (or side letter) is often used to change contractual terms. No need for a new contract.

Consult a solicitor and take direct action against the NW if you believe that they have contravened their own T&C's.

A side letter is usually by agreement between two parties! I won't be making a complaint, since I have plenty of time before the change affects me and have more pressing matters to deal with. I will however vote with my feet and avoid Nationwide entirely in future.

Thrugelmir

Vincenzo wrote: »

I will however vote with my feet and avoid Nationwide entirely in future.

I'm sure that the NW wouldn't be unhappy with this. (Not said on a personal level I should add). Merely on a lending one.