Mortgage Exit Fee Lender Table

4$£&*(£$&*(!

I exited my Principality mortgage recently. The original exit fee was £125 when I took out the loan, it had increased to £135. I said I wanted a refund in the difference plus a full breakdown of their costs.

So far they rolled over at the first letter, handing over £40 - the difference between the original and revised exit fees, plus a £30 goodwill gesture, taking the total cost so far to £95.

I have since reached a deadlock as their response is the cost breakdown covers 'overheads, staff costs, central administration costs' etc. but refuse to go into specifics. I have now referred the case to the Ombudsman after exhausting their internal complaints process.

Whether I win or not I am not so bothered, I think I have come off well with an exit fee of £95 so far, but I would like a breakdown of the costs as even £95 seems a bit steep to charge.

dunstonh

CitySlicker wrote: »

I exited my Principality mortgage recently. The original exit fee was £125 when I took out the loan, it had increased to £135. I said I wanted a refund in the difference plus a full breakdown of their costs.

So far they rolled over at the first letter, handing over £40 - the difference between the original and revised exit fees, plus a £30 goodwill gesture, taking the total cost so far to £95.

I have since reached a deadlock as their response is the cost breakdown covers 'overheads, staff costs, central administration costs' etc. but refuse to go into specifics. I have now referred the case to the Ombudsman after exhausting their internal complaints process.

Whether I win or not I am not so bothered, I think I have come off well with an exit fee of £95 so far, but I would like a breakdown of the costs as even £95 seems a bit steep to charge.

They have no requirement to justify it or give a breakdown. The FSA ruling was that only the difference between what the charge was when you took the mortgage (or the last deal you bought) and what you paid should be refunded.

So,on that basis the FOS will tell the lender to pay you £10.

4$£&*(£$&*(!

Good job I am not asking your opinion then nor am I listening to you. If I took that stance I should have returned the goodwill gesture. You are not the ombudsman either, you can only speculate not rule.

dunstonh

CitySlicker wrote: »

Good job I am not asking your opinion then nor am I listening to you. If I took that stance I should have returned the goodwill gesture. You are not the ombudsman either, you can only speculate not rule.

Correct. I am not the ombudsman. However, the ombudsman is not a charity for the stupid either. They will rule in accordance with FSA guidelines that are clearly published. They are not going to disregard a) the contract b) the FSA guidelines. They will just turn round and say you are entitled to £10 and you should accept the lenders offer.

Personally, I think the lender should withdraw the offer if you go to the FOS and let you just get the £10. However, at this time, that is unlikely. Thankfully, the lender is unlikely to be charged the FOS fee as it wont get to that stage and the FOS will filter it out before then. Time wasters and try-it-ons just create unnecessary work and cost that get passed on to others.

4$£&*(£$&*(!

Thank you for your further speculation. I will file it with your previous note.

MarkyMarkD

Exactly as Dunstonh says, they don't owe you any more than you've already been offered, and the FOS will not uphold your claim.

Why should Principality's other members - many of them MSE members - suffer the cost of paying you, or indeed the FOS, money which you are not entitled to in any logical moral way?

4$£&*(£$&*(!

But then MarkyMarkD, are you not perhaps just siding against this because I do not agree with you in another thread? How do you believe I am not entitled to the money in a 'moral' way, are you saying it is wrong to at least put my case forward because I do not believe true costs are being reflected?

Or perhaps you have close links with the financial industry and it would not be in your interest to take my view?

Either way, fortunately those opinions do not matter as I have the right to take things to the Ombudsman whether you agree or not. If it is thrown out, what have I lost? Absolutely nothing, apart from the cost of a stamp. All those people who got bank charges back before the ruling did that on the back of giving things a shot, did you advise them it was logically or morally wrong?

dunstonh

How do you believe I am not entitled to the money in a 'moral' way, are you saying it is wrong to at least put my case forward because I do not believe true costs are being reflected?

What have true costs got to do with it?

Or perhaps you have close links with the financial industry and it would not be in your interest to take my view?

What has that got to do with anything? I have nothing to do with mortgages and banks cause more trouble than good at times. So my interests have nothing to do with the banks. Yet I still disagree with you. MM has no such link either.

I have the right to take things to the Ombudsman whether you agree or not. If it is thrown out, what have I lost? Absolutely nothing, apart from the cost of a stamp.

You have created a cost that gets passed onto all other consumers in future product/interest rate pricing. You also give ammunition to those that feel the FOS needs to change because of the number of vexatious complaints, such as introducing a charge to the consumer.

All those people who got bank charges back before the ruling did that on the back of giving things a shot, did you advise them it was logically or morally wrong?

They were fighting it as they believed they had the law on their side and the OFT would win. You have no legal argument and the FSA ruling is about as black and white as you can get on this. You are just trying it on.

4$£&*(£$&*(!

Might I suggest, dunstonh, you read Mr Lewis's write-up on MEAFs then make comments to him as he talks about 'militant' approaches?

Another one for that file anyway, thank you. :money:

MarkyMarkD

Actually, if you read Martin's words on this properly, he USED to advise taking a militant approach but then toned it down.

It is morally wrong to pursue money you are NOT due via the FOS. And yes, I did say the same thing about bank charges.

The "what does it cost me" argument is not the point. You are costing the other members of the mutual organisation you had your mortgage from.

I certainly aren't disagreeing with CitySlicker because (s)he has disagreed with me on another thread. That would be most childish! I disagree if I disagree, pure and simple.