Mortgage Exit Fee Lender Table

MarkyMarkD

I used to have an A&L mortgage, so I know exactly how their MEAF terms are drafted.

I'm not "rubbed up the wrong way" by your comments. But those comments are incorrect.

If you wish to state completely incorrect things like:

babykitten wrote:

The FSA have said that these fees should really reflect the true cost, which is clearly not £75.

then you should expect to be corrected.

Similarly, you may believe that:

The costs are the reason for the existence of this fee.

but it is not true. The fee exists because it is a means of making money on the mortgage, along with the initial product fee (more than the costs of setting up the mortgage account), the CHAPS fee (more than the cost of sending you the money) and the interest rate (more than the cost of A&L borrowing the money, at least in some cases).

I cannot understand the notion that you have, along with some others, that the MEAF is the one part of a mortgage on which the lender should not be allowed to make a profit. That is not what the FSA said. They said that, like other parts of the mortgage terms, the amount cannot be varied by the lender to an unreasonable extent during the term.

And A&L have complied 100% with the terms of the FSA ruling, by refunding your MEAF back to the amount which you signed up to in the first place.

I'm not being pedantic in pointing this out. I am correct.

Bullying financial institutions by threatening them with the Financial Ombudsman, when they have behaved entirely in accordance with the guidance issued by their regulators, is scarcely a fair or reasonable approach to take.

babykitten

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

I used to have an A&L mortgage, so I know exactly how their MEAF terms are drafted.

I'm not "rubbed up the wrong way" by your comments. But those comments are incorrect.

If you wish to state completely incorrect things like:then you should expect to be corrected.

Similarly, you may believe that:but it is not true. The fee exists because it is a means of making money on the mortgage, along with the initial product fee (more than the costs of setting up the mortgage account), the CHAPS fee (more than the cost of sending you the money) and the interest rate (more than the cost of A&L borrowing the money, at least in some cases).

OK, fair enough. But if it had suited A&L to argue that this fee WAS to cover costs then they would have made this argument. So I don't think they should be surprised if others make it. Perhaps it wasn't particularly helpful of the FSA to phrase their thoughts like that.

Anyway, even the name itself suggests that it is SUPPOSED to cover some notional cost of theirs. They actually changed the name of the fee from when I opened it. But both names hinted at the fee being to cover the cost of closure of the account. So they should expect people to argue that this is unreasonable if presented with evidence of the true costs of closing the account.

I cannot understand the notion that you have, along with some others, that the MEAF is the one part of a mortgage on which the lender should not be allowed to make a profit. That is not what the FSA said. They said that, like other parts of the mortgage terms, the amount cannot be varied by the lender to an unreasonable extent during the term.

I can see where you're coming from with that, but this fee is the ONLY fee that A&L have upped from what I agreed with them, so consequently the only thing I'm complaining about. I have incurred no other fees with this account, apart from the normal interest.

If they are going to up this fee to outrageous levels and then only return it due to pressure from the FSA (and lets remember that A&L were the organisation that resisted this pressure the most), then I think they have shot themselves in the foot if they want customers to cooperate with them.

And A&L have complied 100% with the terms of the FSA ruling, by refunding your MEAF back to the amount which you signed up to in the first place.

Actually, they initially tried to hit me with the £295 charge even though I opened my account early enough to have the reduced inflated amount. Again, an attempt to stiff me out of money.

I'm not being pedantic in pointing this out. I am correct.

Bullying financial institutions by threatening them with the Financial Ombudsman, when they have behaved entirely in accordance with the guidance issued by their regulators, is scarcely a fair or reasonable approach to take.

I think it's perfectly reasonable actually when they have made a concerted effort to stiff me and many others out of money for no justifiable reason. An agreement was made that my fee would have been x. I can accept that in 25 years time they could argue for some sort of inflationary increase in this, but to hike it by £220 in 8 years is just a clear attempt to rip me off.

They were not exactly cooperative with me either during the complaint. This is something the ombudsman is there to deal with. They are actually very lucky that I didn't take them to it. Their attitude stinks and has ruined what was an 8.5 year relationship of almost 100% satisfaction with their product and service up to that point. Not a good way to do business.

Palm_Centro

Abbey fee May 2005 £99.00.

MarkyMarkD

The FSA agreed with each financial institution the way that they would compensate their customers under the FSA ruling. Banks and building societies didn't just make it up.

So, the fact that refunds are down to the amount originally paid - and not some arbitrary level of "true cost" - is what the FSA was prepared to accept, as regulator. That FSA ruling already went further (i.e. more in the interests of the customer) than the law.

The FSA ruling ALSO allows for reasonable increases in costs to be applied to the amount originally agreed, but hardly any financial institutions have applied this aspect of the ruling (for simplicity). So, generally, financial institutions have paid out MORE, not LESS, than they were required to do.

When, babykitten, you say that A&L originally attempted to charge you £295, I assume that was because it was prior to the FSA's ruling?

libbycameron

I just had a 2 minute call to RBS and they are putting £125 straight into my bank!! Thanks:T

MrsBartolozzi

Didn't have time to read all the posts, so may have been posted before:

You don't seem to have details of the Bank of Scotland prior to becoming HBOS. Could you find these details out?
Thanks,
MrsB.

heebs

sydney1k wrote: »

Mortgage Express Contact number

0870 240 8844

I've just rung quoted my old mortgage account number and gained £100, it should be with me in the next 7 days.

hello all...anyone want the non 0870 tel numbers for mortgage express...just go to the
saynoto0870 website..(google it) and put mortgage express in the company search box..it will give you alot of freephone numbers and 01274 555 555 and 0500 255249 and 0500 0500 20...and more...no need to dial the 0870 high rates

I havent tried any of the numbers yet...its late evening..will call them in the morning..

orie0505

We've just successfully claimed from C&G for a closing administration fee of £225 paid in 2006. However they are now calculating interest as 1% above Bank of Englang base rate; not the 6.25% shown in the original article.

MarkyMarkD

Well, as they are not obliged under the FSA ruling to pay any interest at all, even 1% over BBR isn't to be sniffed at.

janellew

Hi, saw your 2007 post requesting details of comparative exit fees for IF mortgages. Did you ever get this information ? We are about to repay a mortgage taken out in 2003 and have been quoted £140 although nothing specific shown in offer letter. Appreciate if you have any info you can pass on. Thanks Janelle.

Lotte wrote: »

Hi,

Any chance you can put up details for Intelligent Finance?

I know they are part of the Halifax group but to claim i beleive you have to go direct to Intelligent finance.

many thanks

Lotte