Mortgage Exit Fees successes and failures

Migsy

Hiya, i originally took out a mortgage with RBOS is January 2004 then swapped to Woolich in May 2006. I dont have any paperwork for this anymore but do you think there is a chance of claiming anything? Im not really used to doing any of this stuff.

The mortgage i took out with the woolwich then finished in February this year when i swapped to Natwest after i brought my partner out. I remember it stating on the paperwork originally that there was a £275 charge and that is what i paid so i am presuming i cannot do anything about this?

Any advise would help

mark55man

dunstonh wrote: »

The pricing would have been very clear. One of the few things that the FSA has done that is very good is the introduction of the KFI. This gives a simple, short document that outlines the terms in a key facts style. The charge was not hidden and it was very clear.

The size of the charge does not make it unfair. On that basis a £2000 television would be an unfair charge because you can buy televisions for £100.

I think it unfair if the £2000 television actually only took £50 of manufacturing

The trouble with you highly trained monkeys who work the mortgage system is that you think we should all have the same knowledge as you and should care about the intricacies. That's why we have plumbers to do the plumbing - they don't expect us to know how a boiler works exactly (although they can be equally snide), but equally if one of them charged £295 to do a job that cost £50 it would cause outrage on cowboy TV shows.

I think the problem with your industry is that you are so familiar with how the mortgage companies try and make money out of the package (which they have do to stay in business), that you fail to see how "uninformed clueless monkeys" see it. Which is that it is designed to transfer money from our pockets to theirs as quickly as possible. A bit like MP expenses - legal - yes, clear - possibly, unfair - definitely

MarkyMarkD

I refuse to accept assertions that KFIs contain "a raft" of figures which are impossible to understand.

In fact the whole point of the KFI is that it shows figures in a consistent way between different lenders.

If the buyer of a mortgage doesn't bother comparing the KFIs from the various lenders they are considering, and hence decides for themselves whether the product with a £295 MEAF is better value than the one with a £50 MEAF, then that's their fault. That's not a flaw with the KFIs and that's not a flaw with the products being offered.

I have argued before with Steve, who has NEVER answered the question, that his point is rubbish.

If there is a choice of two mortgages, one charging £295 up front, 5% for 2 years and £50 MEAF, and another charging £50 up front, 5% for 2 years and £295 MEAF, then clearly the second one is the better deal.

But because some people are obsessed with the idea that the MEAF - out of all the elements of a mortgage's cost - should represent cost, they will claim that the first deal is fairer. Or maybe they'll just buy the second deal, and then refuse to pay the £295 because it's too high. D'oh!

This is the reality of the situation. For a period of several years, A&L offered best buy mortgage products - which were genuinely best value over the term, including their £295 MEAF. They were often sold by IFAs, advising their customers correctly as to best value over the term. And they were often bought by customers who simply chose for themselves on the basis of best value over the term.

It is a shame that due to completely incorrect interpretation of the FSA's ruling on MEAFs - which actually said nothing at all about the MEAF's level being related to cost - this debate keeps going round and round.

Steve_xx

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

I refuse to accept assertions that KFIs contain "a raft" of figures which are impossible to understand.

In fact the whole point of the KFI is that it shows figures in a consistent way between different lenders.

If the buyer of a mortgage doesn't bother comparing the KFIs from the various lenders they are considering, and hence decides for themselves whether the product with a £295 MEAF is better value than the one with a £50 MEAF, then that's their fault. That's not a flaw with the KFIs and that's not a flaw with the products being offered.

I have argued before with Steve, who has NEVER answered the question, that his point is rubbish.

If there is a choice of two mortgages, one charging £295 up front, 5% for 2 years and £50 MEAF, and another charging £50 up front, 5% for 2 years and £295 MEAF, then clearly the second one is the better deal.

But because some people are obsessed with the idea that the MEAF - out of all the elements of a mortgage's cost - should represent cost, they will claim that the first deal is fairer. Or maybe they'll just buy the second deal, and then refuse to pay the £295 because it's too high. D'oh!

This is the reality of the situation. For a period of several years, A&L offered best buy mortgage products - which were genuinely best value over the term, including their £295 MEAF. They were often sold by IFAs, advising their customers correctly as to best value over the term. And they were often bought by customers who simply chose for themselves on the basis of best value over the term.

It is a shame that due to completely incorrect interpretation of the FSA's ruling on MEAFs - which actually said nothing at all about the MEAF's level being related to cost - this debate keeps going round and round.

You can say what you like about this until you're blue in the face. It will not alter the fact that I, and just about everyone else who has posted here, wholeheartedly disagrees with your argument.

mark55man

I agree with what you say, and despite what you may think am not a complete moron or chancer, but the MEAF are now classed as "dodgy". Martin says so

Therefore despite being not actively unhappy with them at the point of purchase (which by the way I did through a broker), I now realise that I have an opportunity to highlight my dissatisfaction with the devices used to provide alternate and confusing cost models.

I also see an opportunity to take advantage of the banks over-reaching themselves and their current unpopularity - just as they themselves would do with no thought of morality just of the bottom line.

Do as you have been done by

dunstonh

but the MEAF are now classed as "dodgy". Martin says so

It's in Martin's interests to basically have a go at every fee possible. That is his agenda. He plays to his audience by saying what they want to hear.
Sometimes the crusades are worthy and valid. The problem is that many people have taken on the assumption that every fee charged has to be proportional to the work done and is unfair. That is not the case.

For a period of several years, A&L offered best buy mortgage products - which were genuinely best value over the term, including their £295 MEAF. They were often sold by IFAs, advising their customers correctly as to best value over the term. And they were often bought by customers who simply chose for themselves on the basis of best value over the term.

A&L were consistently better and they offered good deals on expiry as well so you never had to pay the £295 exit fee as you went straight into a new deal.

MarkyMarkD

Good point, dunstonh. The other point I didn't mention to steve_xx and his ignorant ilk was exactly that - the A&L fee of £295 is ONLY payable if you redeem, which is yet another reason why it is fairer than a £295 up-front fee.

Steve_xx - the fact that a lot of people on MSE post drivel doesn't make it correct.

mark88man - Martin started out suggesting that fees over £50 were unreasonable and should be reclaimed; he does NOT say that any more.

Steve_xx

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Good point, dunstonh. The other point I didn't mention to steve_xx and his ignorant ilk was exactly that - the A&L fee of £295 is ONLY payable if you redeem, which is yet another reason why it is fairer than a £295 up-front fee.

Steve_xx - the fact that a lot of people on MSE post drivel doesn't make it correct.

mark88man - Martin started out suggesting that fees over £50 were unreasonable and should be reclaimed; he does NOT say that any more.

I'm not persuaded by your argument and I will not be bullied into accepting yours or anybody elses views that I don't subscribe to.

Your reference to me and my "ignorant ilk" is regrettable.

mark55man

Steve

I think it was a typo, and that he was referring to ignorant elks, which we all know look and act pretty dumb.

Not dumb enough to melt down the entire western financial system - you need highly intelligent cheetahs for that - but dumb enough not to understand the clever abstractions and justifications with financial models that Joe Public have to accept as fair and moral

MarkyMarkD

I don't, frankly, care what steve_xx thinks, as his argument has no logic to it.

Anyone who believes that it is fairer to pay £295 now and £50 in the future, than to pay £50 now and £295 in the future, when all 4 amounts are clearly advertised and guaranteed up-front, is clearly not worth discussing moneysaving with.

And anyone who believes that it's right to sign up to a deal which costs £50 now and £295 in the future, because it's clearly better value than the deal which costs £295 now and £50 in the future, and THEN to refuse to pay the £295 when the time comes, because it's more than £50, is equally illogical and, frankly, immoral.