Today my Building Society pulled out of my remortgage??

kiwi_saver

dunstonh wrote: »

He is correct. Despite the possible differences in meanings you have found, you were not remortgaging as you were only changing terms of the borrowing and you were not a homemover. Typically remortgaging would mean using a different lender.

Can you back this thinking up at all? Despite IFAs saying "This is what it means.." what evidence do you have, in simplest terms the meaning of a word is that defined in a dictionary or by some authoritive source. I assume the FSA in this case would be an authoritive source??

Being a homemover wasn't a condition of eligibility, it was either homemover or remortgage.

dunstonh wrote: »

You cut out the adviser and chose not to seek advice and take on that responsibility yourself. It is one of the risks of DIY.

I had rung and discussed this in some length with the relevant staff at the building society. Again it would depend upon how you define advice, but they had discussed many options and stated I was eligible as well as stating that once the reservation fee was paid I would have secured the product.

dunstonh wrote: »

The contract is void as you were never eligible for it.

This would be true had eligibility been stated clearly. It wasn't.

Kiwi

JoeK_3

kiwi_saver wrote: »

I think my existing mortgage provider are taking the Mickey.

Last week I applied for a fixed-rate 2 Year remortgage at 5.34% with a £249 (no refundable) reservation fee. A week before I had rung the building society and been advised I was eligible to apply for this particular product, but suggested I wait a couple of weeks for some offers they were putting together for existing customers.

Implication here that it was not available to existing customers. Note: Calls are usually recorded.

kiwi_saver wrote: »

I was told however that products were running out and if I did apply, only once I had paid the reservation fee would I have secured a specific product.

After a few days of contemplating I decided to apply for the 2Y fixed product (as it was still available and advertised online). The conditions were 1) Apply online, 2) available to homemovers and remortgages, 3) various LTV %.

I applied online, got a KFI and subsequently filled out the complete application form online. In one part it asked who my existing provider was and I selected said company and gave my mortgage account number as requested.

Yesterday I was rung and I provided my CC details for the reservation fee which was duly taken from my credit card.

Just a couple of hours ago (oddly after the BoE rate rise announcement) I received an email from the bank saying oh, they hadn't realized I was a customer and "..the product you have selected is not a product we would have looked to offer you... .. I have refunded the £249 fee to your account..." in essence they refused my application.

Frankly I'm appalled, If I had been told upfront at any stage of the process I was ineligible I would have gone elsewhere, I feel as they have already accepted my application and the reservation fee I have secured the product and the rest is more formality. Personally I feel that since the BoE hike they are trying to pull out of deals in favor of ones more beneficial to them.

If I had decided to pull the application, then I wouldn't have got my reservation fee back, hence in my logic they owe me an element of compensation for breaking the contract in a manner that will now cost me a fair bit more than £250!!

Is this normal behavior, where do I stand and how can I complain further? If I can't sort this out directly I'm feeling I should file in county court (small claims track) as their breach will cost me ££ in real terms.

Any thoughts?

Kiwi

It's clear from the post that this was not a continuous application process, as there was a break from the initial contact with a lender's employee to applying online. (With no contact)

Clearly, there was an indicator (although not 100% clear) from an employee of lender about the none availability of the product to an existing customer.

I would be inclined to write a strong letter to the lender explaining your situation and I'm sure that they will make a sympathetic decision based on your letter and taped conversations with their employees.

JoeK

kiwi_saver

JoeK wrote: »

Clearly, there was an indicator (although not 100% clear) from an employee of Woolwich about the none availability of the product to an existing customer.

I would be inclined to write a strong letter to the Woolwich explaining your situation and I'm sure that they will make a sympathetic decision based on your letter and taped conversations with their employees.

Thanks Joe,

Yes I will be taking this up with them, I'll let you all know how I get on.

BTW: The provider in question isn't the Woolwich, but I'd rather not mention who they are.

Kiwi

dunstonh

Can you back this thinking up at all? Despite IFAs saying "This is what it means.." what evidence do you have, in simplest terms the meaning of a word is that defined in a dictionary or by some authoritive source. I assume the FAS in this case would be an authorities source??

I've had a look via goggle and found just as many that state the following sort of thing: The process of paying off one mortgage with the proceeds from a new mortgage using the same property as security.

I had rung and discussed this in some length with the relevant staff at the building society. Again it would depend upon how you define advice, but they had discussed many options and stated I was eligible as well as stating that once the reservation fee was paid I would have secured the product.

It doesnt matter. The staff gave basic information and did not complete the advice process. Did you get the suitability report giving the recommendation from them?

You didnt transact through the adviser but chose to go direct. If you check the key facts about our mortgage services document you would have been sent you should find that it states in part 3 that "you will not receive advice or a recommendation from us".

You cannot complain about advice if you dont get it and if you dont use the adviser that you sought the advice from you cannot complain about them as they didnt transact the product you bought and never got the opportunity to complete the advice process.

This would be true had eligibility been stated clearly. It wasn't.

At the end of the day you are using semantics to get a foothole and that is unlikely to work by itself.

BTW: The provider in question isn't the Woolwich, but I'd rather not mention who they are.

If you tell us who it is we can look at the website to see if the info is unclear or not.

I just think you are flogging a dead horse here. You are not financially worse off because of their actions and you didnt use an adviser. Unless there was a breach in the phone call, it is unlikely to get any monetary benefit to you.

kiwi_saver

:j Hi Everyone,

Just an update here for those interested. I sent off a long email outlining my argument, had to follow up with a couple of chasers and the building society reneged and allowed me to take-up the remortgage that I had applied for. So as of the 1st July I'm now on a 5.35 fixed, which I'm pretty pleased with.

I suppose the lesson here is don't let them push you around and stand-up for what you think is right.

Regards,

Kiwi.

MarkyMarkD

They still didn't let you have a REMORTGAGE. They let you have a PRODUCT SWITCH to the remortgage product.

Won't you listen to everyone telling you that you are using the wrong terminology?

Don't you appreciate that the initial duff advice might have been because you phoned up and said "I'm an existing customer and I want to REMORTGAGE to this product you are offering ..."?

Keeping_Positive

Using the wrong term shouldnt matter. They had her details on screen and said or at least gave her the impression that she was eligible. Also what kind of system lets you enter your existing details without recognising that it was already one of there products therefore apparently ineligible The fact that they have let the original deal go through shows that she was right. Im sure they wouldnt have backed down that easily.

We are not supposed to know all the right terms. I would expect the bank/building society to explain things clearly and not be thrown off track by a wrong term. To me remorgage doesnt rule out moving between one companies different products. Its a new deal therefore a remortgage. I may be wrong but as I said we are not supposed to be the experts.

Kiwi, Im glad you stood your ground and won.

MarkyMarkD

"I may be wrong". You are.

If I was designing a form for new applicants for a bank, I wouldn't design it to check if someone already had a mortgage with that bank. It would seem obvious to me that nobody would be so numpty.

Many lenders' websites have explicit sections showing which products are available to:

- house movers
- remortgagers
- existing borrowers wanting to switch product

If that wasn't the case for the OP's lender, then that isn't very helpful of them. My lender certainly does have all of those, and clearly says to phone up if you are an existing borrower wanting to switch product.

It's not clear what the OP told their lender when they phoned up.

The actual "application" was processed online, so no individual from the lender said it was valid. Taking the reservation fee was clearly a mistake.


I'm not going to keep banging my head against the wall on this one. I'm glad the OP is happy. But they have got more than they really deserved.

alant1000

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

"I may be wrong". You are.

If I was designing a form for new applicants for a bank, I wouldn't design it to check if someone already had a mortgage with that bank. It would seem obvious to me that nobody would be so numpty.

Many lenders' websites have explicit sections showing which products are available to:

- house movers
- remortgagers
- existing borrowers wanting to switch product

If that wasn't the case for the OP's lender, then that isn't very helpful of them. My lender certainly does have all of those, and clearly says to phone up if you are an existing borrower wanting to switch product.

It's not clear what the OP told their lender when they phoned up.

The actual "application" was processed online, so no individual from the lender said it was valid. Taking the reservation fee was clearly a mistake.


I'm not going to keep banging my head against the wall on this one. I'm glad the OP is happy. But they have got more than they really deserved.

Marky you party pooper!

Did kiwi get a result? = yes
is he/she better of as a result? = yes
does he / she deserve it? = for sheer effort yes
is this a vistory everyone who has made the mistake can expect? = NO
does the use of terminology bother anyone as he/she has got the result = NO

Am i happy for Kiwi? Definitely.

jamesd

MarkyMarkD, kiwi_saver acted exactly according to the definition dunstonh provided: took out a new mortgage that paid off the existing one. The lender's staff said on the phone that they do offer that to existing customers. The lender's web site was also fully informed that kiwi_saver was an existing customer and was set up to accept the remortgage in that situation, when it could have been set up to decline if that was desired. And now the lender has confirmed this with their decision.

I suppose kiwi_saver could ask for proof that the lender did secure the funds then use the newly secured funds to pay off the original loan but that's not likely to be helpful to anyone.

Choosing to do it with a remortgage could prove costly: there might be redemption costs and penalties for the original mortgage, for example. Presumably kiwi_saver has had to pay those exit costs from the original mortgage since it was redeemed. Certainly seems fair that this should be so, given that kiwi_saver chose a remortgage rather than a product change.

Insisting that a lender is only allowed to offer product changes, not remortgages as well, to existing customers is unhelpful. You might expect that but it's not necessary.