Mortgage Exit Fees successes and failures

Devonjem

MarkyMark

You said this in an earlier message:

"Whilst your legal logic sounds convincing, you are missing a key point. The UTCCR does not apply to price-setting terms."

Is it still key to your argument - given the FSA does not agree with you in regard to MEAFs that allow for recovery of admin charges of the bank - which is what my posts are all about?

Why do you disagree with the FSA's definition of what a MEAF is? Just to remind you, the FSA say that a 'MEAF term' is "a provision in a contract
between a lender and a customer that obliges the customer to pay a sum for
the costs of administration services which a lender incurs when a customer

exits a mortgage contract."

Now you might say you agree with that definition, and that those words allow for inclusion of a "price" - as Dunstonh seems to say. If that is so, why does the FSA not make your price-setting argument if it includes price? The issue is not whether the admin fees include a profit - the issue is whether the UTCCR reg you mentioned applies to what are admin fees. The FSA does not think so.

The FSA say this "If there is doubt about the costs that the lender may recover under a MEAF term, the interpretation that favours the consumer must be used" (UTCCR Reg 7)

I have raised doubt over the bank's costs. So in whose favour will the interpretation be? Me. You might say it is not my doubt but the court's that matters. That is not a good argument in the context of this discussion as the bank refuses to allow any claim to reach the court - and for good reason. So, is it in my favour for there to be a legitimate charge of 50 and a mysterious unmentioned profit of 250 when the bank only is meant to get admin fees? What is your answer to that?

If the bank is right on interpretation, it must fight as that would be in the best interests of its shareholders. It has a duty to protect shareholders. it only has to fight once and set a precedent and save the bank millions. Why doesnt it do that - what is your answer? Mine is because it has received legal advice saying there is a real risk of losing the fight. That is the only way a company can protect itself from shareholder claims.

Does it make me a blackmailer just because the bank doesnt want to take the risk of losing? And dont make the silly point that such claims are nuisance claims for the bank and it would rather pay. That is total rubbish. The fact the claim is small, and would cost the bank more than the value of the claim itself to fight it, has no bearing at all on the legitimacy of the claim.

Steve_xx

dunstonh wrote: »

I see nothing in that which suggests the post is libellous. It is not naming anyone but a generalisation.


It is also flooding the FOS with spurious complaints and increasing calls for the FOS to review its funding methods and what you can and cannot complain about. The Conservatives have already suggested that they will introduce a consumer complaint charge that would be refunded on successful complaints but not on failed ones to reduce the number of spurious complaints.

The FOS have rejected calls so far to change the system but are looking at improving the filter to allow more complaints that are fraudulent or spurious to be removed before they get passed for review (and bring a charge for doing so).

The FSA have even suggested that they will prevent certain areas of business from having access to the FOS for complaints.

So, abuse of the complaints process for spurious compaints like these could see the system changed to the detriment of the genuine consumers that have real complaints.

You are referring to people who have successfully reclaimed mortgage exit fees as blackmailers. That, in my my view, and in this instant, is a most unfortunate use of the word.

Devonjem

Dunstonh

That has no bearing at all on a legitimate request for a breakdown, now does it? Lets not forget what this discussion is about - someone accused me of blackmail just for requesting a breakdown and I am disputing that.

Calling someone a blackmailer is libellous. Its not a generalisation - it was levelled at me. The actions are libellous if the parties can be indentified. Does it make the actions OK just because the accuser hides behind the anonimity that the internet provides?

MarkyMarkD

Devonjem You are simply repeating yourself and ignoring my summary of my position.

If the contract says "recovery of costs" in any form, then you are quite correct that they should recover costs.

If the contract says "exit fee in the amount of £x", without any reference to costs, then £x has nothing to do with costs and can be any amount the bank and you choose to agree.

That is absolutely the FSA's view and it is for that reason that they have not taken any action against any lender for charging an amount which is more than costs. They have also not required any lender to evidence their costs.

That's all I'm saying.

Your comments about libel are quite ridiculous. This is an internet forum consisting of anonymous individuals. So the answer to the final sentence of your final post is "YES". Comments I have made are intended to be general comments about the practices readers of this thread may choose to indulge in, not individual attacks on any individual.

I have already clarified that the blackmail/obtaining money with menaces/whatever, from my perspective, is in threatening to refer a complaint to the FOS if you don't get the refund you desire. Dunstonh has confirmed exactly the same view.

If you want to have a go at _Andy_, who first accused you (or at least those in your position) of blackmail and hasn't since clarified what he meant as I have done, then I'd do so rather than blaming me for others' words.

I'd also consider the fact that Dunstonh has posted on MSE over 24,000 times and been thanked for his contributions over 9,000 times. The equivalent statistics for me are 7,000 and 3,000.

And you've posted 15 times and been thanked once.

Perhaps you can see that Dunstonh and I understand how internet discussion forums in general, and MSE in particular, work, and how people can make valuable contributions to discussions?

Steve_xx

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

I have already clarified that the blackmail/obtaining money with menaces/whatever, from my perspective, is in threatening to refer a complaint to the FOS if you don't get the refund you desire. Dunstonh has confirmed exactly the same view.

If you want to have a go at _Andy_, who first accused you (or at least those in your position) of blackmail and hasn't since clarified what he meant as I have done, then I'd do so rather than blaming me for others' words.

All three of you are wrong. It is not blackmail. It is an available legal option.

I'd also consider the fact that Dunstonh has posted on MSE over 24,000 times and been thanked for his contributions over 9,000 times. The equivalent statistics for me are 7,000 and 3,000.

And you've posted 15 times and been thanked once.

You may well consider that Dunstonh has posted 24k times and been thanked 9k+ times. I don't see the relevance of that at all. It does not make his views right. He's not God and therefore his views can be disputed and disagreed with. After all, these are his opinions and they are not necessarily shared by everyone. This is a free and open forum and others are just as entitled as you to express their views on a given subject.

Perhaps you can see that Dunstonh and I understand how internet discussion forums in general, and MSE in particular, work, and how people can make valuable contributions to discussions?

How very smug and patronising of you.

...............

Charis

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Devonjem
Perhaps you can see that Dunstonh and I understand how internet discussion forums in general, and MSE in particular, work, and how people can make valuable contributions to discussions?

Then it is a shame that with all the slagging off which is going on in this thread that my post yesterday lunchtime (#2666) has been completely ignored, buried in the heap of unfriendly dialogue and red fonts.

Devonjem

Markymark

The fact that someone has posted many times on this board, and been thanked many times, does not make that person's view any more valid than a newbie. You obviously think otherwise, and therein lies a problem in my view. As far as i can tell, you seem to think that a valuable discussion is one that results in your view prevailing. I am not the one who needs to learn etiquette.

Just because someone else raised the blackmail term initially, that does not excuse your repetition of it. You said making requests for breakdowns is blackmail, and you said that with the knowledge of my circumstances as set out in my early posts. There was no need for that. Yes you later said you agreed with Dunstonh's blackmail comment, but that does not negate what you said earlier.

What you and others cannot see is that you are attacking people unjustly and rudely, calling them blackmailers, in regard to an issue that is simply not clear cut. You might be right on the law, I might be right. If the law was clear on this issue then there would not be such a fuss at the FSA and internally at the banks. The banks would not be changing their rules, fees and labelling of these clauses. The law is not yet clearly settled on this issue. Further, there are many variables in each person's case. Labelling anyone a blackmailer without knowing detail is just wrong.

I have answered your points despite what you say. You do not answer all of mine.

The FSA make no argument (on behalf of banks) in regard to a MEAF being price setting. Thats because a MEAF (as defined by the FSA) deals with admin fees not price. I would argue that even if the clause does not expressly refer to recovery of admin fees, if the bank, post contract, discloses its true intention of the clause (to recover admin fees) then the bank would in my view be acting reprehensibly if it later argues that its intention at the time of making the contract was different. That would be immoral. The court should always endeavour to interpret clauses as the parties intended them to be interpreted, and the court will do that in cases of doubt over the meaning of the clause.

MarkyMarkD

Charis wrote: »

I am hoping to repay my mortgage in December, twelve years early. I will not be charged an early repayment fee as I made it clear at the time that I wanted to be able to pay chunks off if I could. I have that agreed by the Building Society in writing. What I do not have is any record at all of the exit fee. It is not in my original loan agreement. I phoned C&G head office and was told it will be £90. The clerk told me it is on my annual statement each year.

Upon checking, I find that it is not on the first two statements. On the next it appears as £180 then on the last three up to last December appears as £225. It seems they have had to readjust downwards but should I have had a record of the new figure of £90 somewhere in the original documentation? There is not a mention of any exit fee at all apart from a small suggestion in one of the leaflets they gave me (although not on the mortgage offer itself) that there may be a charge, but no figure given. I suppose I should consider myself lucky but as there is no evidence of the proposed charge is it worth challenging it?

Apologies for missing your post, Charis.

I'm bored with Devonjem and Steve_xx now, so I'll answer your post instead.

12 years ago, all lenders would have not stated the exit fee in their main terms and conditions. The mortgage deed, and the mortgage terms and conditions, would likely have stated that an exit fee would be charged. The amount of the exit fee would have been stated in a "mortgage fees" leaflet which should have been issued to you, and your solicitor, with your mortgage offer. That is how the amount was incorporated as part of your mortgage contract.

Most lenders will insist that the fees leaflet was always issued. Given that it would have been sent to two individuals, separately, the chances are that it was issued so they are on reasonable grounds in insisting that this did occur.

So, the £90 fee they are asking will be their standard fee at the time your mortgage started.

My personal advice would be that £90 is the correct, and fair, amount for you to pay.

Others will doubtless disagree because they believe that all banking should be free and that it's right to argue banks to death until they give in.

Feel free to take whichever advice you consider most useful.

Steve_xx

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

I'm bored with Devonjem and Steve_xx now, so I'll answer your post instead.

.........Snap

Charis

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

12 years ago, all lenders would have not stated the exit fee in their main terms and conditions. The mortgage deed, and the mortgage terms and conditions, would likely have stated that an exit fee would be charged. The amount of the exit fee would have been stated in a "mortgage fees" leaflet which should have been issued to you, and your solicitor, with your mortgage offer. That is how the amount was incorporated as part of your mortgage contract.

Most lenders will insist that the fees leaflet was always issued. Given that it would have been sent to two individuals, separately, the chances are that it was issued so they are on reasonable grounds in insisting that this did occur.

So, the £90 fee they are asking will be their standard fee at the time your mortgage started.

My personal advice would be that £90 is the correct, and fair, amount for you to pay.

Thanks MarkyMarkD. All I keep reading is that the figure is "in the original contract", which it isn't. I have seen both £90 and £50 quoted on different websites so wanted to check before shelling out. I definitely don't have a copy of the Mortgage Fee leaflet but I do have the paperwork from the solicitor in addition to my own. I'll plough through that and see if there is a mention.

Charis