Banks should declare mortgage conditions upfront

Flashback_2

I recently posted a message about Norwich & Peterborough shafted me with a tracker buy to let mortgage.

However, I think the FSA should regulate all banks to provide their mortgage conditions upfront. So you know BEFORE you pay for a valuation and spend valuable time preparing all the documents to send to them.

I don't know how many people have seen grea deals only to be shafted by the terms & conditions.

dollydiva

Actually, that's not a bad idea, although it's supposed to be 'each application on it's own merits' as your situation is going to be different to my situation...that said, I do wonder about the true individuality of applications....or have the decision makers at the BS now become so jaded that they skim thru them like a Cosmo quiz?

Dd

opinions4u

What specific issue caused you a problem?

While issuing the T&Cs in advance would cover lenders' backsides should an issue come up, 95% won't bother reading them. So lender wins again.

T&Cs are also NOT an underwriting document. There a different stages to the mortgage underwriting process and sometimes information comes to light long after valuation that changes the decision from "yes" to "no".

(EDIT: If it's a buy-to-let offering, it's not regulated anyway. You're running a business. If you think they've been unfair, take them to court).

luckyfool

The OP's issue is that N&P have invoked an emergency clause in the t&c's to basically override the tracker margins and increase the interest rates charged. This condition was in effect at the time of application, and I believe you would normally have received a copy of these with your mortgage offer.

shortchanged_2

luckyfool wrote: »

The OP's issue is that N&P have invoked an emergency clause in the t&c's to basically override the tracker margins and increase the interest rates charged. This condition was in effect at the time of application, and I believe you would normally have received a copy of these with your mortgage offer.

Which I believe is totally wrong. Surely this has to be an unfair term of contract because it is a no lose situation for the bank or BS.

However from the recent Skipton case it appears shock, horror that the FOS seem to think it is OK to do.

Surely a contract has to be fair and equal to both parties.

ILW

If you don't like the terms, don't enter into the contract. Seems pretty obvious to me.

koexelek

This is an area where mortgage brokers can value.
The skill of a broker's job isn't really about finding who has the best rates ( anyone can do that), it's knowing the criteria of the lenders, to know who best to place a case with

dunstonh

The mortgage the OP has is unregulated. So, any FSA ruling wouldnt apply to it.

In the 80s and 90s you used to use a solicitor to read your contract and they would point out potential negatives. Nowadays, people bypass that to save money. Yet they expect to get the same. If you cut out the legal advice (and financial advice where applicable) then you take responsibility for knowing what you are signing.

Thrugelmir

Flashback wrote: »

I recently posted a message about Norwich & Peterborough shafted me with a tracker buy to let mortgage.

However, I think the FSA should regulate all banks to provide their mortgage conditions upfront. So you know BEFORE you pay for a valuation and spend valuable time preparing all the documents to send to them.

As Dunston says your mortgage isn't regulated by the FSA as its a commercial loan. You are a good example to people of why its important to understand contracts that are signed in the business world. As you are not a consumer. You are assumed to be either knowledgble enough or have taken professional advice so are fully aware of the risks of entering into the contract.

shortchanged_2

ILW wrote: »

If you don't like the terms, don't enter into the contract. Seems pretty obvious to me.

So what do you think the piece of legislation called the unfair terms of contract covers.

When the OP took out this contract were they informed what 'extreme circumstances' cover. It sounds very wooly.

As the consumer are you able to invoke an extreme circumstances clause from your behalf if interest rates go too high and you find it difficult to pay. I very much doubt it.

Banks and BS's are allowed to get away with murder.

Thrugelmir

shortchanged wrote: »

So what do you think the piece of legislation called the unfair terms of contract covers.

When the OP took out this contract were they informed what 'extreme circumstances' cover. It sounds very wooly.

As the consumer are you able to invoke an extreme circumstances clause from your behalf if interest rates go too high and you find it difficult to pay. I very much doubt it.

Banks and BS's are allowed to get away with murder.

You are missing the point. The OP is not a consumer, he would be viewed as a sole trader.

As for the Unfair Contract Terms Act. Two fundamental issues in this instance are:-

- the information available to both parties when the contract was drawn up

- whether the contract was negotiated or in standard form

Lesson is read what you sign. Clauses are there for good reason. Contract law has evolved over many years so covers every eventuality.