Mortgage Exit Fees successes and failures

MarkyMarkD

Steve_xx wrote: »

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. However, others don't share that opinion and they feel that they have been duped.

Anyone who "feels that they have been duped" simply because they failed to read their KFI is deluding themselves in a vain attempt to justify their blackmailing attempts.

Nobody who has a post-November 2004 mortgage (i.e. where they received a KFI) has any case for complaining about their MEAF, irrespective of the amount of that MEAF.

melvis

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Nobody who has a post-November 2004 mortgage (i.e. where they received a KFI) has any case for complaining about their MEAF, irrespective of the amount of that MEAF.

Not necessarily the case, the Abbey MEAF didn't increase til May 2005 so if you took out a mortgage in April 2005 and redeemed sometime in 2006, chances are you'd be due a refund.

dunstonh

Unfortunately, the review of the FOS's charging structure to which Dunstonh refers is complete and FOS have ruled out changing the system to a more logical one whereby "innocent" companies will pay nothing. But they already pre-sift complaints and they are unlikely to progress a spurious MEAF claim or charge the lender involved.

The FOS have basically said no change but the Conservatives have acknowledged that the current system is open to abuse and would consider investigating alternatives. A change of Government may see it change. Lord Hunt's review seems to be largely dismissed by the FOS.

Problem is that the current system allows a minority of vexatious complainants to create costs. If sites like this encourage blackmail then the system will have to be changed for the greater good.

Personally I don't think much change is needed as the mechanisms are already there to deal with frivolous complaints. However, the FOS rarely class complaints under that. They ought to. Pre-sifting does seem to be more logical as well but I am not sure how that has progressed. Last I heard was that it was being considered by the FOS. Not that it was already in force.

Steve_xx

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Anyone who "feels that they have been duped" simply because they failed to read their KFI is deluding themselves in a vain attempt to justify their blackmailing attempts.

Nobody who has a post-November 2004 mortgage (i.e. where they received a KFI) has any case for complaining about their MEAF, irrespective of the amount of that MEAF.

It's very obvious to me that a lot of people on here disagree with your view.

Steve_xx

dunstonh wrote: »

The FOS have basically said no change but the Conservatives have acknowledged that the current system is open to abuse and would consider investigating alternatives. A change of Government may see it change. Lord Hunt's review seems to be largely dismissed by the FOS.

Problem is that the current system allows a minority of vexatious complainants to create costs. If sites like this encourage blackmail then the system will have to be changed for the greater good.

Personally I don't think much change is needed as the mechanisms are already there to deal with frivolous complaints. However, the FOS rarely class complaints under that. They ought to. Pre-sifting does seem to be more logical as well but I am not sure how that has progressed. Last I heard was that it was being considered by the FOS. Not that it was already in force.

It is not "blackmail".

dunstonh

It is not "blackmail".

So what do you call threats to obtain money that you are not legally entitled to by abusing a system that would cost them more if they do not refund it?

MarkyMarkD

melvis wrote: »

Not necessarily the case, the Abbey MEAF didn't increase til May 2005 so if you took out a mortgage in April 2005 and redeemed sometime in 2006, chances are you'd be due a refund.

OK, melvis - fair point, for the category of people who redeemed during the window that you mention.

But steve's argument relates primarily to those who are being asked to pay exactly the amount that their KFI stated, and that is who I was really referring to.

MarkyMarkD

Steve_xx wrote: »

It's very obvious to me that a lot of people on here disagree with your view.

And those people are wrong.

I can seek to explain why they are wrong (and I have done, at length); if they cannot understand why they are wrong, that's unfortunate.

Steve_xx

dunstonh wrote: »

So what do you call threats to obtain money that you are not legally entitled to by abusing a system that would cost them more if they do not refund it?

It is not blackmail. They are not threats. They are called legal options.

MarkyMarkD

Hm, yes, of course.

In the same way that it would be legal for you to go up to a granny in the street, and ask her to hand over £295 to you because otherwise you would get your bigger friend to make her pay them £450?

And that wouldn't be a threat?

:rotfl: