Mortgage Lenders Move The Goalposts

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That's not how things work...

When you have to make a decision that could bring down some banks, it's entirely how it works.

I find your outlook somewhat bizzare. You moan constantly about mortgage rationing, but want to see something implemented that would only provide even less funds for lending.

I can see, and understand why you don't like lenders moving away from BOE rates, but it's extremely unlikely anything actually illegal is taking place, as much as you'd like it to be.

Emy1501

Back in 2010 NW advised the 2% above base rate had cost them something like 300m. Not really surprised that lenders who are fighting for survival are going invoke clauses in the terms and conditions to suit them. As far as I'm aware people took Skipton to the FOS and lost.

I don't agree with what these lenders are doing but its a dog eat dog world and people need to read the terms and conditions more clearly in the future.

Also as said I didn't see too many refering to terms amd conditions with regards to bank charges.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

When you have to make a decision that could bring down some banks, it's entirely how it works.

Nonsense Graham.

There is no fear of banks being taken down just because they choose not to rip off their customers.

Although I can see quite a few bankers bonuses being a bit smaller next year if they don't get away with it.....:cool:

it's extremely unlikely anything actually illegal is taking place, as much as you'd like it to be.

Well I think it's very clear there would be something illegal taking place if they all did. Some have contracts that simply cannot be changed. Others perhaps have contracts that can, we'll see if they stand up to closer scrutiny from the financial ombudsman.

Either way, I'm pretty sure that all these banks changing terms now are doing nothing other than opening up the next major mis-selling scandal such as PPI. Even if they get away with it for a few years, they'll pay eventually.

Emy1501

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Either way, I'm pretty sure that all these banks changing terms now are doing nothing other than opening up the next major mis-selling scandal such as PPI. Even if they get away with it for a few years, they'll pay eventually.

There is nothing in the article to suggest that the changes were not in the Key Facts. At the moment its an article about nothing. If they had evidence to support that a lender had raised rates against the key facts then it would be of interest. Lenders like Halifax's SVR follows their own base rate for mortgages taken out over the last couple of years anyway.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Either way, I'm pretty sure that all these banks changing terms now are doing nothing other than opening up the next major mis-selling scandal such as PPI. Even if they get away with it for a few years, they'll pay eventually.

As I said, highly doubt it, especially considering people have the option to switch in many cases.

It's obvious you don't like it, but I think you are looking a little too far in hoping it's illegal.

Ray Boulgers take on the matter is clear. He doesn't like it either, and goes for the "they are profiteering" route before suggesting somehow, somewhere, it might be illegal. Surely if it was, he could state why and what was illegal, but he doesn't.

His stance on the key facts vs T&C's seems a bit weird to me. He suggests that if it wasn't in the key facts, the T&C's can't go ahead. They are two different documents for two different purposes. Does he want the full T&C's in the key facts? In other words, renamed to...erm, T&C's?

Thrugelmir

Emy1501 wrote: »

As far as I'm aware people took Skipton to the FOS and lost.

Never went to court. Those complaining didn't put their money up. So the solicitors never took action.

The FSA hold the key to these issues. As the Directors are required by law to keep the BS solvent under the Building Society Acts. So will discussed the matter with the FSA . These decisions aren't taken lightly.

Thrugelmir

Graham_Devon wrote: »

His stance on the key facts vs T&C's seems a bit weird to me. He suggests that if it wasn't in the key facts, the T&C's can't go ahead. They are two different documents for two different purposes. Does he want the full T&C's in the key facts? In other words, renamed to...erm, T&C's?

Correct. If every exceptional circumstance was listed in the Key Facts document. Lenders would need to post out toilet rolls.

Emy1501

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As I said, highly doubt it, especially considering people have the option to switch in many cases.

It's obvious you don't like it, but I think you are looking a little too far in hoping it's illegal.

Ray Boulgers take on the matter is clear. He doesn't like it either, and goes for the "they are profiteering" route before suggesting somehow, somewhere, it might be illegal. Surely if it was, he could state why and what was illegal, but he doesn't.

His stance on the key facts vs T&C's seems a bit weird to me. He suggests that if it wasn't in the key facts, the T&C's can't go ahead. They are two different documents for two different purposes. Does he want the full T&C's in the key facts? In other words, renamed to...erm, T&C's?

Its all about treating customers fairly these days. Therefore I suspect the FOS would expect something in the key facts explaining that the lender could change the rate in expectional circumstances. The last one I got was quite long about 5 pages so no real reason for it not to be on there.

What seems more weird to me is I suspect that most of these would be standard and therefore its would not be too hard for a mortgage company to pull a few of these out and check what was on them and then advise which lender if any people should be considering complaining about it any.

michaels

I wonder what 'cost' means in this context - that they made a £300m loss (interest income less cost of capital and defaults) on the part of their mortgage book paying 2.5% or that if they had only been forced to reduce rates to the market level (about 4%?) that they would have made an extra 300m profit. I suspect the later.

Emy1501 wrote: »

Back in 2010 NW advised the 2% above base rate had cost them something like 300m.

Thrugelmir

Emy1501 wrote: »

Its all about treating customers fairly these days. Therefore I suspect the FOS would expect something in the key facts explaining that the lender could change the rate in expectional circumstances. The last one I got was quite long about 5 pages so no real reason for it not to be on there.

What seems more weird to me is I suspect that most of these would be standard and therefore its would not be too hard for a mortgage company to pull a few of these out and check what was on them and then advise which lender if any people should be considering complaining about it any.

At a point the borrower should either read the full contract themselves or ask their solicitor handling the transaction to explain the finer detail to them.

The contract itself is a fairly standard document. As the FSA is very specific regarding the contents.

People complain about everything if its not in their favour.