Mortgage Exit Fees successes and failures

LindaandNicole

:j
Hi - just to let you know, I am systematically working my way through the 'Money Makeover' as suggested by Martin (and yes I have saved thousands already) - only found out about the MEAF issue two weeks ago! having paid off a Coventry Building Society mortgage in 2005, I wrote to them asking for the difference between the amount they were charging when i took out the mortgage in 1998 (£90+deeds) and the amount they had charged me - £195. I did expect to get £70 or so. However, they wrote back, saying that as I had taken some extra borrowing in 2003; and as they had advised me in the new paperwork for that that the MEAF had increased to £195, they were not going to give me a refund as 'they had informed me about the charge'. Thank goodness for the MSE site! I read the details on MSE again. Then I wrote BACK to Coventry: Ah, I said. That's not the point. I'm not saying that you didn't TELL me, I'm saying that according to the FSA that increase in the fee wasn't justified. And you're charging less than that now. Which kind of supports my complaint that the £195 wasn't justified. So, I'm quite happy to pursue this with the FSA but I'm giving you one more chance before I do.... and? - two days later, cheque in the envelope, a FULL REFUND of the whole £195 (like I say i only expected the difference of £70 or so) - together with a letter saying they stuck by everything they said in the first letter but here's a cheque anyway. Result! :beer:

dunstonh

However, they wrote back, saying that as I had taken some extra borrowing in 2003; and as they had advised me in the new paperwork for that that the MEAF had increased to £195, they were not going to give me a refund as 'they had informed me about the charge'.

Which is correct in line with what the FSA ruling was.

Then I wrote BACK to Coventry: Ah, I said. That's not the point. I'm not saying that you didn't TELL me, I'm saying that according to the FSA that increase in the fee wasn't justified. And you're charging less than that now. Which kind of supports my complaint that the £195 wasn't justified. So, I'm quite happy to pursue this with the FSA but I'm giving you one more chance before I do.... and? - two days later, cheque in the envelope, a FULL REFUND of the whole £195 (like I say i only expected the difference of £70 or so) - together with a letter saying they stuck by everything they said in the first letter but here's a cheque anyway. Result!

The FSA did not rule as you said. Effectively you blackmailed them into a refund because it would be more expensive for them to stand their ground rather than pay you the amount.

Whilst you got the money and you are happy about that, it is another statistic for those to quote when it comes to removing the ability to complain without taking on some risk (such as a charge to complain if your complaint is not upheld). This site isnt about blackmail. If everyone did what you did then the free complaints process would have to end.

LindaandNicole

Hmph. I love that 'if everybody did what you did' argument. If you read my post carefully, you will see that I clearly said that I only expected to get £70 or so - i.e. the difference between the JUSTIFIED ADMINISTRATION CHARGES (what they originally said they would charge; which is equal to the amount that they are also charging NOW) - and the unjustified increased charge that they applied to me in 2005.
I did not 'blackmail them into a refund' - I simply stood my ground in respect of the intention of the FSA ruling, that I should not have to pay an unjustified inflated fee if it was more than 1) that quoted when I took out the mortgage' and 2) that which they now charge.
It was their choice to write back to my second letter and offer me a refund of the charge in full. At no point did I ask for that - I clearly, twice, in writing, asked for 'the difference'.
And as for 'if everyone did what you did' - you're an IFA. Of course you worry about people having the ability to complain that you might occasionally get it wrong.

dunstonh

you will see that I clearly said that I only expected to get £70 or so

Yes you did. But then you wrote back asking them for more money that you were not entitled do.

the difference between the JUSTIFIED ADMINISTRATION CHARGES (what they originally said they would charge; which is equal to the amount that they are also charging NOW) - and the unjustified increased charge that they applied to me in 2005.

They dont need to justify it. There has been no ruling on them being unjustified.

I did not 'blackmail them into a refund' - I simply stood my ground in respect of the intention of the FSA ruling, that I should not have to pay an unjustified inflated fee if it was more than 1) that quoted when I took out the mortgage' and 2) that which they now charge.

You did blackmail them. You made up some FSA ruling that does not exist (clearly indicating you didnt know what you were talking about), told them you wanted more and threatened to take it further if they did not pay.

It's a bit like the whiplash claims on motor insurance. Its cheaper to settle than to fight them. Which means people who dont deserve money get paid out but its other people that suffer.

It was their choice to write back to my second letter and offer me a refund of the charge in full. At no point did I ask for that - I clearly, twice, in writing, asked for 'the difference'.

The cost of not paying you would have been greater than paying you.

And as for 'if everyone did what you did' - you're an IFA. Of course you worry about people having the ability to complain that you might occasionally get it wrong.

The funding for the FOS is already under review and there have been calls a number of times for the current method to change as it encourages fraudulent complaints, try-it-on complaints and blackmail. Every time someone does that, it hammers a nail in the coffin of the free complaints process and that cannot be good for people with genuine complaints who need to use that service.

Its not about me being an IFA. Its about what is best for the consumer.

LindaandNicole

Dunstonh; you can't have it both ways. You can't on the one hand say that I 'blackmailed' them; and on the other that my letters to them showed that I clearly didn't know what I was talking about. Unless what you are trying to say - in a terse, rude and judgemental fashion - is that I 'unintentionally blackmailed them'. And perhaps, to a pedant such as yourself, that is what happened. And if that is what it takes, for consumers who do not always know every aspect of every legal ruling to be able to get a refund when they have paid more than they needed to; then that is just fine by me.
And as for the cost of not paying me being greater than paying me - they could have just offered me exactly what i asked for - i.e. the difference between the charge as it was stated both when I took out the mortgage and as it is now, and the inflated charge in 2005. As it is they gave me a full refund. Which I will enjoy.

Finally. You suggest that my complaint was not 'genuine'. You also say I don't know what I'm talking about. I assure you that having read the site guidelines (which you patently ignore in your postings) I honestly believed (and still do believe) that I had a claim, albeit that the Coventry have sent me more than I actually asked for. That makes it a 'genuine' claim. Not a 'scam', not 'blackmail' , not 'try-it-on' and not 'fraudulent'. You clearly have a bee in your bonnet and no qualms whatsoever about being rude and accusatory to other posters.
I'd like to think that this little 'frisson' of correspondence is now over between us but given that your record stands at 54,000 postings and you post roughly nineteen times a day; I'm sure you won't be able to resist trying to have the last word.

_Andy_

Good use of the word 'frisson'

dunstonh

I'm sure you won't be able to resist trying to have the last word.

okay......

FunLovinCriminal

Hi People
I too am new to all of this. Thought New Year, New Me! and have thrown my hat into the ring, applied for my redemption fee from Natwest, and Abbey - there is another mortgage lender between these two, however I have thrown the paper work and cannot remember who they were. Natwest were brilliant, emailed me back within a week and BACS paid me £80!!!:D
Abbey have dragged there heels, and after five weeks have written back saying I'm not entitled to anything, as there fees were the same as they quoted.
However, with this I have claimed Tax back on uniform laundering £80, and am overall chirpy with the results.
Like I said, I'm a newbie.... anyone got any links for more ways to save/reclaim
Cheers
FLC

beathebanker

one letter one week later advised cheque coming for 52.00
thks mse:money::A

chocci

I've just phoned Halifax , they can't investigate my case unless the have a role number. I no longer have it as I switched in about 2000 and they say they can't give it to me !! as usual - fobbed off /grrr!:mad: