ombudsman mortgage fees

brown1950

magpiecottage wrote: »

Although you say this, you are unable to produce evidence of any case where a court has ruled in favour of a consumer on this issue.

I have told you many times the court's has not ruled on these arrears charges because the Lenders will NOT allow their charges be scrutinized
in Court. What don't you understand about this ?

By contrast, I have given numberous examples of consumers taking lenders to FOS, free of charge or risk, and winning arrears charges disputes.

And if the FOS reject ? alternative is what ?

You have speculated a reason for lenders not allowing such cases to get to court. That is a possible reason. However, alternatives have been suggested that are at least as plausible.

Not speculation - its a fact Lenders have not allowed a case to proceed to court.

So no we do not know - and the mere repeated assertion that what you say is fact does not change the reality that it is unsubstantiated speculation.

With Billions of £ behind them - why have the Lenders not put this problem to bed ?

Nor does it change the reality that anybody taking a lender to court faces the risk of losing - and possibly having costs awarded against them.

Yet again i will repeat my earlier comments - unless the defendant can show the claim is vexatious no costs are an issue in the small claims court (Under £10,000)

I will let you know the outcome of two claims of under £10,000 each against Barclays Bank - these should hopefully be concluded before the end of this year. Lets see if Barclays allow these actions to proceed to a Court hearing or will they negotiate a settlement ?

magpiecottage

brown1950 wrote: »

Yet again i will repeat my earlier comments - unless the defendant can show the claim is vexatious no costs are an issue in the small claims court (Under £10,000)

Then yet again I must repeat that, FOS is free to the consumer unless the claim is frivolous or vexatious.

It is impartial, specialises in financial services complaints of this nature has a track record of awarding redress in these cases and leaves a the consumer able to reject an ombudsman's decision if they do not like it and then try court instead. Go to court first and if you do not like the outcome, it is then too late to try FOS.

Number of ombudsman decisions on PPI misselling complaints in favour of a consumer - about a thousand as far as I can tell.

Number of court decisions on PPI misselling complaints in favour of a consumer - I can count those I have found on the fingers of one finger and still have a finger to spare.

I have also seen it suggested, in the light of the EU ADR Directive, and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (effective from yesterday) that refusing to consider alternative dispute resolution could be deemed by a court to be a vexatious act.

The recognised alternative dispute resolution mechanism for PPI complaints is the Financial Ombudsman Service.

So there seems to be no good reason not to try FOS in the first instance.

brown1950

magpiecottage wrote: »

Then yet again I must repeat that, FOS is free to the consumer unless the claim is frivolous or vexatious.

It is impartial, specialises in financial services complaints of this nature has a track record of awarding redress in these cases and leaves a the consumer able to reject an ombudsman's decision if they do not like it and then try court instead. Go to court first and if you do not like the outcome, it is then too late to try FOS.

Number of ombudsman decisions on PPI misselling complaints in favour of a consumer - about a thousand as far as I can tell.

Number of court decisions on PPI misselling complaints in favour of a consumer - I can count those I have found on the fingers of one finger and still have a finger to spare.

I have also seen it suggested, in the light of the EU ADR Directive, and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (effective from yesterday) that refusing to consider alternative dispute resolution could be deemed by a court to be a vexatious act.

The recognised alternative dispute resolution mechanism for PPI complaints is the Financial Ombudsman Service.

So there seems to be no good reason not to try FOS in the first instance.

I will not continue further on this subject except to say two large claims
for mortgage arrears fee's against Barclays Bank will shortly be concluded - I will then return with details of the result.

magpiecottage

brown1950 wrote: »

I will not continue further on this subject except to say two large claims
for mortgage arrears fee's against Barclays Bank will shortly be concluded - I will then return with details of the result.

That is fine. However, as I understand it, the cases to which you refer do not relate to FOS and if, as you suggest, they are settled by negotiation, then they will not really shed much light on the issue.

Of more interest will be the OP's case because it it a different lender - and FOS has already ruled against him.

brown1950

No doubt Bricklayer 1 (as the FOS have rejected his claim) will advise us the outcome of any legal action he takes against his lender for the return of the mortgage arrears charges.

magpiecottage

brown1950 wrote: »

No doubt Bricklayer 1 (as the FOS have rejected his claim) will advise us the outcome of any legal action he takes against his lender for the return of the mortgage arrears charges.

I'm sure he will if he wins. If he loses, though, I am not so sure he will not slink off with his tail between his legs.

That would be a pity because, whilst a court decision in his favour would be helpful to know about. One against him would also be.

bricklayer1

magpiecottage wrote: »

I'm sure he will if he wins. If he loses, though, I am not so sure he will not slink off with his tail between his legs.

That would be a pity because, whilst a court decision in his favour would be helpful to know about. One against him would also be.

Hi and sorry for not updating this thread.
My current situation is im still waiting to gather all information against my lender and then have it looked at by the solicitor who managed to fend off their repossession demands.
I will then be hopefully pursuing my greivances through the small claims court.
fos did award me a cash sum but they failed to see the whole picture and this particular ombudsman suggested a £50 monthly arrears fee was acceptable and that fos were not in a position of stopping these lenders making money.
I want this questioned, I want it scrutinised because I can see no value in such monthly fees which only leave the unfortunate owner in even deeper trouble.
Their fees have so far been dropped from £50 to £35 and now £27. I want the difference at least paid back.

dunstonh

I want this questioned, I want it scrutinised because I can see no value in such monthly fees which only leave the unfortunate owner in even deeper trouble.

If the lender was not charging those it would mean interest rates would rise and/or other charges would rise. So, those that are not in financial difficulty would be cross subsidising those that are. That isn't fair either.

The general trend in financial services from the regulator is to remove cross subsidies. The FCA position is that fees are allowed but the fee has to state what it is for and that has to be carried out.

Their fees have so far been dropped from £50 to £35 and now £27. I want the difference at least paid back.

If I took Tesco to court because last month they were selling an item at 50p more than they are this month, would you expect a judge to refund me the difference?

The above are largely devils advocate responses.

magpiecottage

Just to give an analogy that adds a little context to your case.

Maidenhead United are to host Port Vale in a first round FA Cup replay this week.

Can they win?

Undoubtedly. You only need to look at what Chesham United - not far from Maidenhead - did at Bristol Rovers. Maidenhead managed to get a draw at Port Vale as well.

Will they win? Another nearby side, Wealdstone were thrashed 6-2 at home by league opposition. Didcot lost 3-0 to Exeter City. Staines also let in 6 against a league side.

That is the sort of odds you are up against.