Halifax Standard Variable problem

felixrv

My argument is not whether one obtains a mortgage through a broker or directly through halifax. It is on the vagueness on the wording of standard variable which prompts me to think this was done deliberately to interpret anyway they want and whenever they want and it is very sad to see you supporting there action.

GMS

felixrv wrote: »

My argument is not whether one obtains a mortgage through a broker or directly through halifax. It is on the vagueness on the wording of standard variable which prompts me to think this was done deliberately to interpret anyway they want and whenever they want and it is very sad to see you supporting there action.

You still haven't answered so I assume you went direct to a non advised mortgage as you thought you knew best.

I do not know the wording of your mortgage offer. If you want me to look at it then feel free to contact me and I will do so.

I do not support their actions as you put it. You have clearly stated it is not for a broker to highlight these matters, to which I totally disagree.

My argument is very simple. If you go through a broker you have recourse. If you go direct you don't.

They have done no wrong unfortunately. I really wish they had. Your mortgage offer will have 2 boxes near to the front, one saying advised, and the other saying non-advised. I suspect yours will have a tick in the non-advised.

If you serviced your own car incorrectly you would not balme the manufacturer. If you choose your own mortgage do not blame the provider.

If you go direct the only professional you employ is a solicitor who deals with legals, not mortgage advice.

Like I say, unless I had a copy of your mortgage offer in front of me I cannot say for sure, but you are continually dodging the question of direct or not so I can only assume it was, and therefore all your own decision.

felixrv

If I sell you an apple which said it was an organic apple. You would assume it was an organic apple. But then lets say you found it, really the apple had been grown in a farm full of pesticides and the soil only recently turned over making it not really organic, as the pesticides take years to get out of the soil. I think you would agree with me, you would be pretty annoyed. Now there are examples of this, and in my opinion, the only way to get information out is through the internet.I am sure people would appreciate free advice.

GMS

felixrv wrote: »

If I sell you an apple which said it was organic apple. You would assume it was an organic apple. But then lets say you found it, really the apple had been grown in a farm full of pesticides and the soil only recently turned over making it not really organic, as the pesticides take years to get out of the soil. I think you would agree with me, you would be pretty annoyed. Now there are examples of this, and in my opinion, the only way to get information out is through the internet.I am sure people would appreciate free advice.

Depends where I bought the apple from.

Annoyed is one thing, mis-advised/sold is another.

You have still not answered the question. Direct or broker?

I am 99.9% sure you went direct. Your mortgage offer will state 'non-advised' with something along the lines of 'We have not recommended a product. You have been provided with the information and made a decision yourself'

However in your posts you mention a solicitor. If you do not understand the law you see no problem in engaging a solicitor, and expect them to point out the ins and outs of a mortgage to you despite them being unqualified to do so.

You think (obviously incorrectly) that you do not need a mortgage professional as you know enough yourself, but when things are not what you thought they were it is the fault of the provider.

Non-advised is non-advised.

If your mortgage offer states something you believe to be untrue then challenge it with the lender. If you are unsure you could seek legal advice which may or may not cost you. You could also contact myself (as offered) or numerous other mortgage professionals.

If you bought an organic apple through a regulated provider who had the most stringent compliance procedures ever heard of then you would have n organic apple, or if not have the ability to recover from the Professional Indemnity Insurer. If you went direct to the farmer for the said apple then don't complain when it is not what your mind thought it was.

felixrv

Your talking about the legality of something and you can think what you like ,whether or not i went to a broker or not. I just don't want to skew the argument.

A solicitor would point out the vagueness of the wording.
If the interest rate was still at 5% do you really think Halifax would of changed the standard variable rate to 3 % above. The only reason why they are doing this is because they are in trouble because of the low 0.5% base rate and so there is not enough profit.

Hold on, this has happened to me lots of time, I have asked the staff at a shop whether something is healthy and organinc and they said it was, only to find out later on the internet that it wasn't(a technicality in the wording). (false advertising which is becoming more and more prominent in everything) People will tell you anything to sell you something and lots of staff are misinformed about products. Your implying just by asking for advice you get better advice which is not true. The person who gives you the advice is most important and then credibility then becomes an issue.

GMS

felixrv wrote: »

Your talking about the legality of something and you can think what you like ,whether or not i went to a broker or not. I just don't want to skew the argument.

A solicitor would point out the vagueness of the wording.
If the interest rate was still at 5% do you really think Halifax would of changed the standard variable rate to 3 % above. The only reason why they are doing this is because they are in trouble because of the low 0.5% base rate and so there is not enough profit.

Hold on, this has happened to me lots of time, I have asked the staff at a shop whether something is healthy and organinc and they said it was, only to find out later on the internet that it wasn't. (false advertising which is becoming more and more prominent in everything) People will tell you anything to sell you something and lots of staff are misinformed about products. Your implying just by asking for advice you get better advice which is not true. The person who gives you the advice is most important and then credibility then becomes an issue.

Go to a solicitor. If it is SVR it is legal at whatever they set SVR.

If you really believe everything you believe in the internet then I cannot help you.

I have offered to look at your offer but you have not bothered to respond.

False advertising will be punished as it is regularly, unfortunately it tends not to help the victims.

Bad advice is a different matter, assuming it was advice from a qualified person with Indemnity Insurance.

If you ask for advice then it is important it is from the right person. I have yet to see legal representation appear in the form of a children's entertainer for instance. Usually a lwyer would be the best course of action.

Please do not waste any money with a solicitor. If your offer has been amended afterwards in terms of rate then any mortgage person will tell you, as I have offered.

As for your accusations of selling you anything, I agree that banks will do this directly.

Fortunately and correctly, myself and other brokers need to issue you with an Initial Disclosure Document, a Factfind detailing everything abot you, a Key Facts about the recommended product, and a Suitability Letter as to why the product is the best for you. You would need to sign and return these documents having inderstood them. Then, at any point in the future, if you decided you were mis-sold you would complain to the FSA/OFT/Ombudsman etc. I would then have to defend myself as to why I recommended the product. If I lose I need to pay compensation and have a ruined reputation.

Alternatively you can think you know better and go direct to a lender. They will say non-advised and win. Simple.

felixrv

I noticed you omitted the' technicality in the wording' in your argument from my quote. That says it all.

GMS

felixrv wrote: »

I noticed you omitted the technicality in the wording in your argument from my quote. That says it all.

What technicality?

You have failed to answer questions or offers of help.

I have no need to defend or side with a lender.

You obviously think you are better informed than me.

Good luck with your compaint.

SandC

Did you know OP that Halifax is hiking its SVR to 3.99% for new customers in the New Year?

Existing customers get to keep the 3.5%.

So really, you should be happy.

My tracker is just ending as well. I'm staying on the SVR for a bit. I knew it was going to be 3.5% months ago when I started looking around to see what my alternatives would be. I don't quite get why you didn't. I think my paperwork from 2007 said the base rate was 5.95% at the time. My understanding was that unless it specifically said so, when my deal ended it would go to SVR at the rate at the time.

Surely you are confused with having a 'deal' or not? If your tracker is ending then you have no 'deal'. You have their basic mortgage package and you are free to leave, overpay, whatever really without charge now. You will not have x% over the base rate when your deal has ended. It will be base rate or another deal.

In times of higher base interest rates the lenders did not need to apply as much on top of the base rate in order to get a good return on their lending. They have to make money - hence why they stick 3% or more on to the base rate but don't apply the same to savings rates - quite sneaky but in business terms, understandable.

felixrv

The standard variable rate was purposely done to mislead people.They knew the wording was a bit 'iffy'. You are saying, I should have known better.
The only reason why they are doing this is because the bank of england base rate is low. I didn't know there was going to be a financial crash. It seems like double standards. If the interest rate is high we will leave it at 2%, if it is low, we will hike it to 3%
Heads I win, tail you lose.
They want to limit there liability as they are not making enough profit.
They know this, they know this so they are clinging to a technicality and what is worst(everyone here says it is obvious which is not true).

I have dealt with companies like this before and usually people vote with there feet.
It might not effect existing customers but it definitely has the potential to effect future customers.