Mortgage Discharge Fees

Trebor16

dunstonh wrote: »

It is a form of blackmail. They are given the choice of paying you £275 or suffer £550 from the FOS for doing nothing wrong. You put them in that position.

Utter tosh! There is a complaints system which if they chose not to take it seriously and to dismiss those who complain allows the complaint to be taken to an independent body. Blackmail it isn't

dunstonh wrote:

£275 is not unreasonable. You accepted it when you bought the mortgage. So, if it was unreasonable to you then whey did you buy it in the first place?

I wonder what planet you are on when you say a discharge fee of £275 is "not unreasonable". Other lenders only charge £90, some don't charge at all. The total cost of discharging a mortgage is estimated to be £40-50 so charging over five times that is a rip off.

dunstonh wrote:

They did try and resolve it without forcing you to the ombudsman. They correctly rejected your complaint as you have no basis for complaint. You then decided to pursue it further.

They didn't try very hard and their rejection certainly wasn't correct.

dunstonh wrote:

The FOS are there to enforce regulation. The FSA did a review and set rules on mortgage redemption charges and Woolwich complied with those rules. The FOS would have looked at the fee when you bought the mortgage and checked you paid the same amount when you redeemed the mortgage. If it was more they would have awarded the difference and possibly a goodwill gesture on top. If you paid the same as the contract then the FOS would have rejected your complaint in line with the regulators guidelines.

Just because a charge is levied doesn't make it a fair charge. You only have to look at what has happened to bank charges to see that and as a consumer I have every right to challenge a charge which I considered excessive.

dunstonh wrote:

It hasnt been a waste of time for you as you got your money. However, it is a cost that will be met by others.

How will it be met by others?

dunstonh wrote:

The ability to blackmail firms into paying smaller amounts than the FOS fee is an issue that needs to be resolved. Perhaps by increasing the fee on upheld complaints and removing the fee on rejected complaints. It is extremely unfair that firms that have done nothing wrong have to suffer fees for try-it-on complaints like this.

There you go again, still describing it as "blackmail", which it clearly isn't. Which bank do you work for dunston?

Trebor16

Leon_W wrote: »

If I were The Woolwich I'd pay the £550 to the FOS and make you pay the £275 just for the principle of it


If you didn't like the £275 redemption fee you shouldn't have bought the mortgage in the first place and gone elsewhere.

Your signature shows how objective you are in this matter. Clearly you don't like to see consumers taking on the banks over their inflated and outrageous charges and winning.

dunstonh

Utter tosh! There is a complaints system which if they chose not to take it seriously and to dismiss those who complain allows the complaint to be taken to an independent body. Blackmail it isn't

They took your complaint seriously and found no wrong doing as they had acted within the requirements set by the regulator and the contract you chose to enter into. You decided that you didnt want to honour your contract and take your complaint to the ombudsman where the firm would suffer a fee that is in excess of the amount you wanted back.

I wonder what planet you are on when you say a discharge fee of £275 is "not unreasonable". Other lenders only charge £90, some don't charge at all. The total cost of discharging a mortgage is estimated to be £40-50 so charging over five times that is a rip off.

You cant compare current deals as many of the lenders have moved a lot of the end charge up front. In the past, the deals had low front end charges but higher back end charges. You obviously thought it was reasonable when you bought the mortgage and entered into the contract.

They didn't try very hard and their rejection certainly wasn't correct.

Their rejection was correct. They had a contract you signed agreeing the fee and they followed the regulators guidelines.

Just because a charge is levied doesn't make it a fair charge. You only have to look at what has happened to bank charges to see that and as a consumer I have every right to challenge a charge which I considered excessive.

Exactly correct about bank charges. The banks won the court case on that and for many people, charges have actually increased to what they used to be. Thank you for being so honest about your error.

How will it be met by others?

Do you have any concept of money?

There you go again, still describing it as "blackmail", which it clearly isn't. Which bank do you work for dunston?

Goodness, someone takes a different view to you and you accuse them of working for a bank. How mature. Still, maturity would not be blackmailing a company and accepting the contract you entered into.

kingstreet

Trebor16 wrote: »

I wonder what planet you are on when you say a discharge fee of £275 is "not unreasonable". Other lenders only charge £90, some don't charge at all. The total cost of discharging a mortgage is estimated to be £40-50 so charging over five times that is a rip off

It is incorrect to take one fee of several out of context. When a lender prices a product, the rate, product fee, valuation fee, early repayment penalty and any exit fee are all balanced together.

In this case, by agreeing to a higher exit fee, you would have gained elsewhere - perhaps on the rate, the valuation fee, who knows.

If the lender came back to you and suggested you haven't paid enough and there's an extra interest charge, or that free valuation you had ten years ago now has to be paid for, you would be rightly angered.

If you had attempted to recover a £900 product fee, the lender would have happily gone to FOS with you and paid the FOS fee, as the cost of settling with you would have been more than the referral fee. As it is, you've got your £275 back as it was half the cost of the FOS route, where you would have lost, but to the lender the cost is more important than the principle.

The end result is customers pay more. Shareholders in banks don't lose out. The expenses written into each mortgage are simply increased.

Finally, suggesting those of us who work in the financial services industry would espouse a lender's position is plain wrong. In my experience, mortgage brokers in particular face far too much petty stupidity every day to ever defend a lender. In this case, your individual victory is defeat for the consumer as a whole, because the system is being "gamed" and it is not working in a fair way for the consumer and the provider as it should.

We should never see a point where economic reality prevails over natural justice.

amnblog

The fees as stated in the accepted offer are the fees due.

In the mortgage market it has become commonplace to complain about everything and the system does not stop spurious claims.

To suggest that a cost of £275 to close an account and return deeds is 'extracting the urine' is plainly ludicrous.

Blame the system - it stinks.

brenda10

Trebor16 wrote: »

Utter tosh! There is a complaints system which if they chose not to take it seriously and to dismiss those who complain allows the complaint to be taken to an independent body. Blackmail it isn't






I wonder what planet you are on when you say a discharge fee of £275 is "not unreasonable". Other lenders only charge £90, some don't charge at all. The total cost of discharging a mortgage is estimated to be £40-50 so charging over five times that is a rip off.




They didn't try very hard and their rejection certainly wasn't correct.




Just because a charge is levied doesn't make it a fair charge. You only have to look at what has happened to bank charges to see that and as a consumer I have every right to challenge a charge which I considered excessive.




How will it be met by others?



There you go again, still describing it as "blackmail", which it clearly isn't. Which bank do you work for dunston?

WELL DONE ON CHALLENGING THEM:)
I may be doing the same within a couple of years.
I am sure you ain't too worried about what others say, who cares about them, if they don't want to challenge this, that is great.
Unfortunately I will have to pay a solicitor to receive my documents when house fully paid off which is another rip off, just happened to be in N Ireland and this is the excuse used by Santander now (was Alliance & Leicester).


Good Luck, well done on having your mortgage fully paid, mortgage company have made enough out of you.

Trebor16

amnblog wrote: »

The fees as stated in the accepted offer are the fees due.

In the mortgage market it has become commonplace to complain about everything and the system does not stop spurious claims.

To suggest that a cost of £275 to close an account and return deeds is 'extracting the urine' is plainly ludicrous.

Blame the system - it stinks.

It is "extracting the urine" when other banks only charge £90 for the same service and it is estimated to cost no more than £50 for the banks to close a mortgage account.

Jhoney_2

This and other anomalies, could be resolved by putting all fees at the front of the mortgage.

Whilst I totally agree with what dunstanh and others have said, I have been on the other end of a arrangement broken by a bank and they did this to me as well.

People on both sides potentially play the system when it suits them- and that's exactly what has been done here.

If there is enough of it going on, the banks will realise this themselves. All the FTBs will be along to thank you in a minute OP, lol.