MSE News: Buy-to-let borrowers hit by West Brom mortgage hike

dturner451

Lewis_Ranieri wrote: »

Dean - am working on your answers now, cheers for patience, L

Thanks Lewis


I am actually interested to read what you have to say, but I do think your personal circumstances and experiences are relevant , hence why I asked.


It is difficult to take advice from someone who does not use their own name or back up the advice with details of who they are and what they represent.


I would ask others on here to please give Lewis the chance to answer.




Dean

BeetrootMike

Lewis_Ranieri wrote: »

For all of you wanting to learn more about POA, visit Property Tribes.

Two of the most recent quotes from different users on that forum in response to Stephen's comments...

"Well; you did not answer my question but evidenced POA irreverence by saying....."

and

"How about we avoid a debate about 'money', fiat or otherwise. Even gold is nothing more than a chunk of metal that people believe will have value."

Sound familiar? I don't think you're winning any recruits to your cult on that site either, Stephen. If your intentions are indeed honourable then maybe you'll consider a change of tactics, starting with some open, honest answers?

Bi_Toulet

Lewis_Ranieri wrote: »

Toilet/Alexander - £250 so far. Shepherd comes to mind.


Miriam Freeman vs Bank of Scotland (Ireland) full trial on Securitisation off the back of the POA - read it - 56 times FIFTY SIX times in/out of COURT, Mortgagors if you think you are just going to spend £250 then think again. You think it's just in and hey presto? One hit? Think again all of you. Ka ching ka ching expenses for Alexander and a lovely earner for Smithy at no risk to them!


How do I know so much about cases globally you ask? I'm in contact with them that is why.


Paying Readers - Alexander has you like the Pied Piper, wake up!

Your ignorance is overwhelming... 400+ people have signed up to the campaign and raised over £400,000 every single penny of this has gone into a LAW SOCIETY escrow fund. It cannot be touched by anyone until the case is decided.

You really are mind-numbingly dense if you think we would all blindly give our money to someone on the internet.

And you are trying to dole out advice... Please.

I will keep re-iterating you know nothing about the campaign, the organisation and most importantly contract law. :eek::eek::eek:

rate_hike

Lewis I have just gone through my two Bristol & West now Bank of Ireland, t/c there is no mention of a POA, if the Banks did not want us to no about POA, why then would it be written in the contract. ?

Thrugelmir

Our campaign has also come under attack on other campaign by landlord bashers and conspiracy theorists and they may migrate here to attempt to cause disruption. One did so a few weeks ago and was banned from posting again. If fact, our security here is so strong it is not even possible for another member to post the name that person was using as a pseudonym without the comment being marked as spam. We also have other security built into our systems to detect location, IP address and more so we do have the ability to identify and block these trouble makers.

Explains the migration onto the MSE forum.

Appears you are only welcome on Property118 if your views align.

Given the general tone posting sounds about right. Never seen the MSE team have a need to edit posts before.

The topic has been debated to death. Better to wait the outcome of the court action. Rather than you do yourselves no favours. At the moment there must be people who wonder if they want to associated with some of you.

antrobus

Lewis_Ranieri wrote: »

...Miriam Freeman vs Bank of Scotland (Ireland) full trial on Securitisation off the back of the POA - read it -...

I have.

Or to be exact I read the judgement in Freeman & anor -v- Bank of Scotland (Ireland) Limited & ors [2013] IEHC 371, the full text of which is available here :
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/df184c75e110fe3480257bc8004df318?OpenDocument

Oddly enough, the phrase 'power of attorney' is not mentioned in the judgement. Not once.:)

Lewis_Ranieri wrote: »

Mike - stories are irrelevant to this thread, keep it Technical

IMPORTANT! This is an open forum - anyone can post.

Lewis_Ranieri

Antrobus - it won't be, for obvious reasons. You are reading the Judgement. If you read the File it would give you an insight.

rate_hike

Lewis_Ranieri wrote: »

Antrobus - it won't be, for obvious reasons. You are reading the Judgement. If you read the File it would give you an insight.

Can you do a link to the file please

Lewis_Ranieri

rate hike I have the same B/W AKA BOI Docs with POA in black and white. Are you reading the Offer of Advance or T and C's?

Sandstone

A lot of people in this thread need to grow up or shut up.

Lewis_Ranieri wrote: »

Get this in front of a Jury of 12 and see what they think of what Power of Attorney allows the Bank to do. Then you will have the whole lot fall into the camp of the Mortgagors.

Lewis, why would there be a jury? This is a civil matter.

I suspect that this case (and the law) might not be as black and white as you seem to suggest.

The principle of "freedom of contract" in England and Wales is subject to legislation such as the Unfair Contract Terms Act, the Consumer Credit Act and others, as well as common law. The court can strike out clauses or whole contracts, apply their own judicial interpretation or even create new bodies of law under equity.
And don't even get me started on the FCA powers.

As for your PoA, I just thought I would point out that, even if it is validly incorporated into the contract, and gives the bank the power to unilaterally change the rate, as you so purport, this does not mean there is no case to answer.

Prima facie, what the bank is doing here (and BoI did) seems unfair and somewhat dishonest. It seems likely that the claimants here all understood that a tracker rate would track BoE base rate, and bought the mortgage product on this basis.

There seems to be a question as to whether the clause in question was validly incorporated - since it's not in the mortgage document, query if the claimants were even made aware of its existence. If so, whether the current 'market conditions' can validly be considered a valid Material Adverse Change (or however the bank has named the clause) - query what exactly the change is, since BoE BR has been at 0.5% for the last 5yrs? Furthermore, query whether or not interest rates being low (or high) even qualifies as a 'change', or rather a reasonably foreseeable economic fluctuation?

Lewis, if you have something to say about the case please just say it and stop all the drama.

As for all the rest of you, this isn't about landlords, or savers.
This is about the bank doing something which (arguably) wasn't in the contract, and violating their side of the deal. A "fixed" rate is the only reason why people pay more for a "fixed" mortgage.
Wouldn't you feel cheated if your bank suddenly changed the "fixed" interest rate for their ISA? You probably would have picked a different ISA if you had known. Imagine if they did so via a clause in a booklet you didn't even know about? A booklet that perhaps wasn't even published when you opened your account?*

In English law, there is a limit to what you can sneakily squirrel away into a contract:
"[T]he more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it. Some clauses would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient." (Lord Denning, 1956).

Just from the facts contained in the MSE article, I think the power to change the rate at will would require some pretty substantial signage, don't you think? And I think we've already established that the claimants weren't made aware of it at all.

*small disclaimer: I have only read the article and read this forum thread. I haven't seen the contract itself.