Mortgage Exit Fee Lender Table

marshallka

pinknico wrote: »

Has anyone got the details to contact the woolwich as the number on the table is not recognised ? Took out mortgage in 2002 and repayed it in 2006.
Thanks

I think Barclays bought the Woolwich
The Woolwich" and "Woolwich" are trading names of Barclays Bank PLC. Registered in England. Registered No: 1026167. Registered Office: 1 Churchill Place, London E14 5HP.

some info here.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Woolwich

babykitten

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Hi Babykitten

I'm guessing that you have switched products a number of times since 1999, and hence the £75 you are quoting is irrelevant.

The fee you are required to pay is the fee you agreed to when you last switched mortgage product - maybe 2 years ago if you have a 2 year fix or discount? That fee would be £295.

Nope. I had the same mortgage throughout from when I started it in 1999. Anyway, I've got an update. I was actually charged 'only' £195, because I took out the mortgage a while ago. This was not mentioned on their leaflets. I have now cleared the mortgage and started a complaint and have now received a cheque for £120 taking the fee back down to £75.

Their letter says that the fee was increased to £195 on 5 January 2004 and then to £295 in August 2004, so somebody might want to update the table with that.

The letter also says that they have "decided" (ha ha) to charge the original fee for those who took out their mortgages before August 2004, but only if you actually complain about it, it would seem! So anybody in that situation can claim it back.

I'm actually still not happy with the fee of £75. The FSA have said that these fees should really reflect the true cost, which is clearly not £75. It also turns out that Scots Law requires that the lender's charge over the property be removed only on the instruction of a solicitor, so this is going to cost me more money.

Clearly this also means that A&L's costs in concluding this mortgage (and others in Scotland) are essentially solely the cost of posting the deeds out. So I think I have a strong case for arguing for more of it back.

Their cost has been perhaps a few pounds. I'll be generous and say a tenner. I think I'm due at least another £65 back.

MarkyMarkD

babykitten wrote: »

Nope. I had the same mortgage throughout from when I started it in 1999. Anyway, I've got an update. I was actually charged 'only' £195, because I took out the mortgage a while ago. This was not mentioned on their leaflets. I have now cleared the mortgage and started a complaint and have now received a cheque for £120 taking the fee back down to £75.

Their letter says that the fee was increased to £195 on 5 January 2004 and then to £295 in August 2004, so somebody might want to update the table with that.

The letter also says that they have "decided" (ha ha) to charge the original fee for those who took out their mortgages before August 2004, but only if you actually complain about it, it would seem! So anybody in that situation can claim it back.

So far, so good. A&L have refunded the correct amount.

I'm actually still not happy with the fee of £75. The FSA have said that these fees should really reflect the true cost, which is clearly not £75.

The FSA have explicitly not said anything of the sort. They have said that you should pay the amount the lender originally charged, i.e. £75.

It also turns out that Scots Law requires that the lender's charge over the property be removed only on the instruction of a solicitor, so this is going to cost me more money.

True.

Clearly this also means that A&L's costs in concluding this mortgage (and others in Scotland) are essentially solely the cost of posting the deeds out. So I think I have a strong case for arguing for more of it back.

No, you don't. The costs are irrelevant.

Their cost has been perhaps a few pounds. I'll be generous and say a tenner. I think I'm due at least another £65 back.

Irrelevant. And then incorrect.

neo28

Hi all

I successfully reclaimed the full £225 off C & G last year for a previous mortgage I had with them. The first letter was unsuccessful with the reply stating that if i did not reply within 2 weeks they would consider the case closed and that I was happy. Well I was not happy and sent off a seconf letter asking them to provide me with a breakdown of charges of this fee, if they could not I wanted a full refund. A week later I had the full fee plus interest in the form of a cheque sent to me in the pot RESULT!

I have however just exited a mortgage with Northern rock, thought i would go in hard and fast explaining I thought the fee was unjustifible and that if they could not provide a full breakdown i would like a full refund.

Well just recieved a letter from them and i`m not happy. They have advised me that the FSA have recently published findings of an investigation into MEAFS, northern rock is applying the MEAF which was applied when the loan began or when the contract was last amended. They state that the board of directors set the fees for commercial reasons and it is not appropriate to quantify the costing other than to say it covers administation involved. It states that in this case it is not suitable for them to refund the fees charged.

Where do I stand with this and what were the FSA findings? Has anyone else been through this with northern rock and has anyone else reclaimed any fees.

Thank you for your time in advance

_Andy_

If the fee is as per your original offer then there is nothing to claim back. If you had an issue with the fee why take a mortgage out with them?

neo28

Hi andy

Thanks for your reply, the fee is to cover administration costs whether I am told that figure at the start, in the middle or at the end of my contract does not make any odds, if they are unable to justify the charge then why should I pay it?


Under UK contract law, you cannot fine someone for breaking a contract; you can only charge them an amount proportionate to the cost of the breach.

The FSA state that ‘If a MEAF term is drafted to enable the lender to recover the cost of the administration services which a lender provides when a customer exits
the mortgage, the lender should ensure that the MEAF represents in fact the
cost of the lender's administration services. A failure to do so is likely to be a breach of contract. `

With reference to the above statements if they cannot justify and breakdown this charge probably because I have been grreatly overcharged, then they have broken not only the FSA guidelines as stated but also UK contract law. To strengthen the arguement they do not charge any fees now for MEAF, if the true cost was £250 per customer are Northern Rock and any other mortgage company likely to waive that for every customer? I think not, then again maybe thats why we the tax payer had to bail them out.

I will let you know how i get on....

MarkyMarkD

The important part in your MEAF quote is "If a MEAF term is drafted ...".

Most MEAF terms are NOT drafted that way. They don't state that they represent recovery of costs incurred, and hence they can be any amount the lender likes.

Northern Rock haven't stopped charging an MEAF, as far as I'm aware. Even if they had, so what? Your contract is your contract; someone else's contract is their contract.

neo28

Hi

Recieved my letter from northern as with chelthemham and glosc, trying to fob off any potential claiments. Well they slipped up in thier reply letter breaking not only UK contract law but the FSA guidelines. After a second letter from me stating thier errors and that they breached the contract a liability letter came through the door asking me to sign exempting nortern rock from any future claim and they will send me a chaeque for £250.


Well the check arrived the other day, its been cased and my balance is now £250 better off for 30 mins work, not bad hey.

All i would advise as in both cases I have been involved with is to stick to your guns, ensure you stay on top of things as the first letter may state if we do not hear from you in 2 weeks we will assume you are happy with our reply bla bla bla.

Hope you guys all have luck too, I will be doing exactly the same with my new Woolich mortgage too.

Kind regards

Neo :j

babykitten

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

So far, so good. A&L have refunded the correct amount.

I don'tagree.

The FSA have explicitly not said anything of the sort. They have said that you should pay the amount the lender originally charged, i.e. £75.

Incorrect.

The FSA said: "If a MEAF term is drafted to enable the lender to recover the cost of the administration services which a lender provides when a customer exits
the mortgage, the lender should ensure that the MEAF represents in fact the
cost of the lender's administration services. A failure to do so is likely to be a breach of contract."

Therefore there are circumstances where they should only charge the actual cost.

No, you don't. The costs are irrelevant.

I disagree. The costs are the reason for the existence of this fee. The fact that in Scotland the lender does not have this task to do lowers the cost in Scotland, hence they should be charging borrowers less in this term in Scotland.

Irrelevant. And then incorrect.

Very relevant indeed. And correct too. Their costs for concluding my mortgage were: (1) putting my deeds into an envelope, (2) posting it. They didn't even use recorded/special delivery like they said they would (can't remember which they said they would use). Their costs were LESS than £10. Extremely relevant when this fee is to recover costs.

I don't much like your tone in replying. Did my post rub you up the wrong way or something?

babykitten

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

The important part in your MEAF quote is "If a MEAF term is drafted ...".

Most MEAF terms are NOT drafted that way. They don't state that they represent recovery of costs incurred, and hence they can be any amount the lender likes.

Northern Rock haven't stopped charging an MEAF, as far as I'm aware. Even if they had, so what? Your contract is your contract; someone else's contract is their contract.

Yes, so how can you know how my MEAF was drafted then? You can't. So to say, in your rather abrasive way, that I'm wrong and the information is irrelevant is surprising.

What's for sure is that these terms are written deliberately in a way to be open to interpretation in order to give the banks wriggle-room. I wouldn't be surprised if it was possible to argue that most MEAFs ARE drafted that way.

Regardless of how they are written, if you complain loud enough and involve the ombudsman (something I haven't done yet) then they will likely just pay out anyway for such a small sum. So perhaps it's your pedantry that isn't so relevant to the discussion.