Mortgage Exit Fees successes and failures

daisydoodlepie

whoo~oo!! After reading all of the success stories, decided to contact the Halifax (we moved to th Chelsea 3 yrs ago). On the 'phone for about 5 mins, no arguments/discussions they are refunding £100 to us!!! How fab is that?? So anyone who hasn't done so ... DO IT NOW!!! ....I love this site ...Thanks Martin!!!

MarkyMarkD

Santander (who own Abbey and A&L) have not had a penny from the UK taxpayer, unlike most of the other banks.

And, steve_xx, it is baloney to say that the bank had a choice whether or not to contest it. They shouldn't have had to make any decision because the OP should not have attempted to contest an entirely valid and legal charge. As I've said before, that's simply bullying.

Ian_Hay

Hi martin,

I have just moved house and i have a portable mortgage which in my book means the mortgage is transferred to the new house. My mortgage company have charged me a £275 redemption penalty ( i.e. they've redeemed it and opened it up a new deal ). Surely I can get this back ? Its a dreadful scam which must rip off thousands of customers. Thanks Ian.

Anyone else seen this before?

Steve_xx

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Santander (who own Abbey and A&L) have not had a penny from the UK taxpayer, unlike most of the other banks.

And, steve_xx, it is baloney to say that the bank had a choice whether or not to contest it. They shouldn't have had to make any decision because the OP should not have attempted to contest an entirely valid and legal charge. As I've said before, that's simply bullying.

It is not baloney. Banks must fear that they are on a sticky wicket, otherwise they wouldn't be handing back these unscrupulous charges when challenged about them.

You keep banging on about the mention of the charge being in the contract. That does not make it a fair charge. Unfair terms and conditions in contracts can and have been set aside.

MarkyMarkD

Not a single MEAF has been set aside.

The FSA had every opportunity to declare that these charges were excessive and illegal. They did not do so.

They actually said that lenders could charge whatever amount they like - as long as it's documented up front.

I cannot account for A&L (for example) in refunding these fees. It makes no sense either commercially or logically. But irrespective of whether they will refund them or not, does not affect the immorality of asking any organisation to refund an amount which you agreed to pay when you bought the mortgage.

There is a huge difference between an MEAF - which in the case of the A&L £295 one was described completely clearly in an FSA-prescribed format KFI - and other forms of unfair terms which are hidden in small print.

Anyone who entered into an A&L mortgage unaware that the MEAF was £295 wants locking up for insanity, frankly.

Steve_xx

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Not a single MEAF has been set aside.

The FSA had every opportunity to declare that these charges were excessive and illegal. They did not do so.

They actually said that lenders could charge whatever amount they like - as long as it's documented up front.

I cannot account for A&L (for example) in refunding these fees. It makes no sense either commercially or logically. But irrespective of whether they will refund them or not, does not affect the immorality of asking any organisation to refund an amount which you agreed to pay when you bought the mortgage.

There is a huge difference between an MEAF - which in the case of the A&L £295 one was described completely clearly in an FSA-prescribed format KFI - and other forms of unfair terms which are hidden in small print.

Anyone who entered into an A&L mortgage unaware that the MEAF was £295 wants locking up for insanity, frankly.

When I mentioned the setting aside of contracts, I did not specifically make mention of MEAF's.

It is my view that the banks generally regard their position on these fees as being unlikely to withstand the srutiny of a court under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations.

The banks are obviously operating a policy of servicing claims for refunds on an individual basis in the hope that their payout will be minimal. Should a court find that this term causes a significant imbalance, then it could be set aside and banks may be forced into paying out massive sums in refunds.

It's all very well to say that a contract is a contract and you knew what you were doing. However, if you can't have the mortgage without the fee then it is arguable that there is an imbalance to the detriment of the consumer.

dunstonh

It is my view that the banks generally regard their position on these fees as being unlikely to withstand the srutiny of a court under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations.

Its a fair opinion but not one I agree with. My opinion, and it is one that is shared by many, is that the current complaints system means that its cheaper for firms to pay a smaller amount and get shot of the complaint rather than have to worry about paying compliance staff to deal with cases that can take 18 months at the FOS and pay the £450 FOS charge (which is going up again).

Steve_xx

dunstonh wrote: »

Its a fair opinion but not one I agree with. My opinion, and it is one that is shared by many, is that the current complaints system means that its cheaper for firms to pay a smaller amount and get shot of the complaint rather than have to worry about paying compliance staff to deal with cases that can take 18 months at the FOS and pay the £450 FOS charge (which is going up again).

My opinion of your opinion is that the banks, on balance, fear that if a case is brought against them, or even on behalf of them, that they may well have to refund a lot more than they have done thus far.

I suspect that my opinion is shared by many too, including the banks and the hundreds of people on here who have been reunited with their money. Especially those people on here who have received refunds when they did not agree to pay a MEAF in the first place, or have paid more than they had agreed or were bullied in to agreeing to.

dunstonh

I suspect that my opinion is shared by many too, including the banks and the hundreds of people on here who have been reunited with their money. Especially those people on here who have received refunds when they did not agree to pay a MEAF in the first place, or have paid more than they had agreed or were bullied in to agreeing to.

Too many people assume that all charges nowadays have to be unfair and can be challenged and will fall foul of unfair contract rules.

Steve_xx

dunstonh wrote: »

Too many people assume that all charges nowadays have to be unfair and can be challenged and will fall foul of unfair contract rules.

Hundreds of people on here have been charged MEAF's when they did not agree to such a charge, and others have been charged an amount in excess of what they agreed to.

These MEAF's are extraneous and their very existence is designed so as to trap the unsuspecting. They are anti-competitive and they serve only to frustrate all but the most savvy individual from making a measured decision.

If I pay £10 to go and see a movie at a cinema, I do not expect to be faced with a further levy of another £10 in order to get out of there.