We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
"Thousands" with BOE trackers face mortgage interest rate rise
Comments
-
Graham_Devon wrote: »Yer, but what has stopped them from choosing another deal?
You highlighted a bit about miss selling, so presumably you are suggesting or implying that something has stopped them taking another deal elsewhere....
Just wondering what that is?
The offer from the Bank of Ireland?'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
The offer from the Bank of Ireland?
Right, so you are saying that this has been mis sold, based on the fact that the client CHOSE to go with the offer from the BOI? The offer that fully explained in the T&C's how they could detract from the tracker rate with 30 days notice?
If that's miss-selling, then i'm sure hundreds of thousands all of the country are due compensation for taking any product that didn't turn out to be the "best product".
All those who lost on shares....all those who chose Share A over Share B and found share B did better....0 -
shortchanged wrote: »It's not just this though is it joeskeppi. It's about precedence.
This could be the start of something bigger. If one bank gets away with it, they'll all be at it and before you know it the 'thousands' becomes tens and even hundreds of thousands.
It is more likely to be about precedents isn't it? :cool:0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Right, so you are saying that this has been mis sold, based on the fact that the client CHOSE to go with the offer from the BOI? The offer that fully explained in the T&C's how they could detract from the tracker rate with 30 days notice?
If that's miss-selling, then i'm sure hundreds of thousands all of the country are due compensation for taking any product that didn't turn out to be the "best product".
All those who lost on shares....all those who chose Share A over Share B and found share B did better....
Don't talk ridiculous they are actually changing the main constituent of contract basing it on 'small print' I am sure they will get away with it but this is not the case in all contracts.The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 protect consumers against unfair standard terms in contracts they make with traders. The OFT, together with certain other bodies, can take legal action to prevent the use of such terms. The UTCCRs can protect consumers from terms that reduce their statutory or common law rights and from terms that seek to impose unfair burdens on the consumer over and above the obligations of ordinary rules of law.'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
Don't talk ridiculous they are actually changing the main constituent of contract basing it on 'small print' I am sure they will get away with it but this is not the case in all contracts.
They will get away with it.
A legal battle and siding with the customers would finish the bank off. That's why they are having to enact their T&C's.
Personally, I think the T&C's which a landlord has put up are pretty clear. A mortgage advisor agrees. I agree that the clause is pretty easy to read and understand. I don't know if there is a case based on some kind of tiny print or human right somewhere, but if there is, it opens a whole can of worms for other lenders.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Seems to be about 3 or 4 on that four page thread alone that are suggesting this will ruin them.
I wonder how many of these were self cert (according to the Beeb, many of these were self cert products) and wonder if the people being ruined is part of that? Certainly seems even 3% base rates is enough to finish off what are referred to as "zombie" households.
Certainly brings everything home anyway. We often discuss zombie business's and households, but haven't as yet seen it in the flesh so to speak. Brings home the problems we currently have.
Quite bold conclusions based on what 3 (or 4) posters said on a thread.0 -
Don't talk ridiculous they are actually changing the main constituent of contract basing it on 'small print' I am sure they will get away with it but this is not the case in all contracts.
Don't most people engage solicitors when buying a house to protect their interests?
It seems a pretty clear, unambiguous clause to me.
No different to any variable rate being reduced/increased - PO esaver, for instance, recently got egg on their face, by not providing due notice.
I could see unfair contract terms working for something like a tick box acceptance or rules on a website but not on a substantial contract such as a mortgage offer or major investment."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
0
-
Quite bold conclusions based on what 3 (or 4) posters said on a thread.
Well you are of course free to disagree. I don't particularly want to agrue about it though.
I don't see that it's a particularly outrageous claim to make consdiering more and more appear to be writing in that thread, on the guardian and telegraph that this will see them lose their home.
If they can't be classed as zombie households, I don't know who would be classed as such.0 -
4.5% is bloody peanuts.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.5K Life & Family
- 261.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards