Nationwide Mortgage - new fees and charges

Vincenzo

Thrugelmir wrote: »

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.

That is very short sighted of them. I do annortgage on my main residence, savings and investments, may have the need for a personal loan in future etc etc

Thrugelmir

Vincenzo wrote: »

That is very short sighted of them. I do annortgage on my main residence, savings and investments, may have the need for a personal loan in future etc etc

In overall terms lenders need to contract their lending books. The newly introduced Banking Levy on wholesale funding squeezes margins even further.

Vincenzo

Thrugelmir wrote: »

In overall terms lenders need to contract their lending books. The newly introduced Banking Levy on wholesale funding squeezes margins even further.

For now, that may be the case.

Thrugelmir

Vincenzo wrote: »

For now, that may be the case.

And for the foreseeable future. Basle 3 doesn't impact fully the worlds major banks until the beginning of 2019. So a few years of adjustment yet before lending markets normalise.

samwardill

Thrugelmir wrote: »

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.

Only the first three complaints per year are not chargeable. See http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/faq/answers/research_a5.html. I imagine NW has more than three complaints this year

The FSA is different from the FS Ombudsman.

I think that the main reason NW is seeking to claim money from every available angle is due to their lack of foresight in arranging a lot of mortgages with a cap of 2% above base rate for the life of the mortgage. Whilst other lenders are seeking to reduce margins on new loans, I am not aware of any other lenders seeking to change terms and conditions to extract more money from existing loans.

Vincenzo

Thrugelmir wrote: »

before lending markets normalise.

I am not sure what normal is but I suspect it will be much sooner than you think that banks will be queuing up to lend again.

Thrugelmir

samwardill wrote: »

Only the first three complaints per year are not chargeable. See http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/faq/answers/research_a5.html. I imagine NW has more than three complaints this year

Not just a question of the number of complaints received. But whether there is a actually complaint to answer. That determines a chargeable event. As they are plenty of spurious claims as well as perfectly good ones.

The FSA through its levies funds the FOS etc.

The £500 per complaint fee is in effect a penalty fine.

fozzeh

A penalty fine which is abused by some customers, knowing that they stand no chance of 'improving' their financial claim. Really should be based on a justified/enforced basis; if the customer is taking the Michael, they get the £500 batted to them.

Either way, the above is very factual but a response from an adjudicator would be good when someone gets it. I may see what my solicitor says tomorrow but he deals more with estates and not contract law.

samwardill

fozzeh wrote: »

A penalty fine which is abused by some customers, knowing that they stand no chance of 'improving' their financial claim. Really should be based on a justified/enforced basis; if the customer is taking the Michael, they get the £500 batted to them.

Call it a fine if you like but it funds approx 50% of the FS Ombudsman. The FSA and FSOS recognise that there is a balance between case fee funding and industry levies. The purpose of the case fee is to provide motivation for FS providers to resolve fees themselves.

In literature that I have read there has never been any suggestion from the FSA or FSOS that customers should pay for frivolous cases. There is too much room for subjectivity. Clearly Thrugelmir thinks my case is frivolous. I think I have a very valid case.

Thrugelmir

samwardill wrote: »

. Clearly Thrugelmir thinks my case is frivolous. I think I have a very valid case.

You've given no grounds for me to think otherwise.

As you've suffered no loss of any kind.