Absolutely Disgusted with the Coventry

silvercar

Glover1862 said:

silvercar said:

"when I took this, no BOE trackers for life where available."
You say no BoE trackers were available, so you knew you weren't choosing a BoE tracker. Yet now you are complaining that your mortgage isn't tracking the BoE rate.

Keep up, we've never said we didn't know, this is just going around in circles!! 

Ok, so you knew it wasn't tracking the BoE, but now you think it is unethical that it doesn't do so. 

jls85

OP if it makes you feel any better I completely understand where you are coming from. People on this board tend to be sticklers for the Ts and CS, but fail to take into account the fact that just because a company can legally so something doesn’t mean they should do it.

If people fail to understand why a person might feel a little aggrieved to have a company only change the rates when it favours them, even if they are technically allowed to do so, then I doubt any amount of explanation is going to convince them. 

You were willing to take the positive and negative rate changes but the company have so far only passed on the negative to you so far. Whether they are allowed to do so or not, it’s one-sided behaviour and I think they will regret this as I doubt you are the only one that is planning on walking because of it. 

csgohan4

jls85 said:

OP if it makes you feel any better I completely understand where you are coming from. People on this board tend to be sticklers for the Ts and CS, but fail to take into account the fact that just because a company can legally so something doesn’t mean they should do it.

If people fail to understand why a person might feel a little aggrieved to have a company only change the rates when it favours them, even if they are technically allowed to do so, then I doubt any amount of explanation is going to convince them. 

You were willing to take the positive and negative rate changes but the company have so far only passed on the negative to you so far. Whether they are allowed to do so or not, it’s one-sided behaviour and I think they will regret this as I doubt you are the only one that is planning on walking because of it. 

Feeling aggrieved is one thing, but being able to  challenge the lender is another which the OP wanted to do. If one is not happy with the current product, switch/change, stamping your feet to make a point is doing themselves no favours.. The FCA will ignore the other stuff  and focus on the T+Cs which is the reality at present.  

But to choose and pick when to abide by the T+C is sour grapes  when it affects both parties. 

Again OP and this poster chose this mortgage product and complaining their not a BOE product, while it is bad form for the lender not to reduce rates, their not obliged to and indeed their product is not even a SVR either  which usually reduces with BOE but not always though. 

I wish i was a track mortgage, but you know what, tough, no one can predict the future... The sooner OP and this poster comes to realise this, the quicker they can move. 

As mentioned they can complain, it's free and no harm if they are not happy with their response from the lender, but I highly doubt they will rule in their favour. 

You can't complain about a product you bought went down in price much later, like buying a new car and finding out the same new model reduced in price 2 years down the line. Are you going to sue the dealership for being unfair? You might as well complain about life being unfair. 

Glover1862

silvercar said:

Glover1862 said:

silvercar said:

"when I took this, no BOE trackers for life where available."
You say no BoE trackers were available, so you knew you weren't choosing a BoE tracker. Yet now you are complaining that your mortgage isn't tracking the BoE rate.

Keep up, we've never said we didn't know, this is just going around in circles!! 

Ok, so you knew it wasn't tracking the BoE, but now you think it is unethical that it doesn't do so. 

Yes, unfair and unethical as the lender says they act in the interest of ALL members but have reduced savings rates and other managed variable rates, so why leave the flex rate? this is all mentioned in the thread, no big reveal here. Having a one street of pass on the increases and non of the cuts is unfair, it is perfectly legal though.

jls85 said:

OP if it makes you feel any better I completely understand where you are coming from. People on this board tend to be sticklers for the Ts and CS, but fail to take into account the fact that just because a company can legally so something doesn’t mean they should do it.

If people fail to understand why a person might feel a little aggrieved to have a company only change the rates when it favours them, even if they are technically allowed to do so, then I doubt any amount of explanation is going to convince them. 

You were willing to take the positive and negative rate changes but the company have so far only passed on the negative to you so far. Whether they are allowed to do so or not, it’s one-sided behaviour and I think they will regret this as I doubt you are the only one that is planning on walking because of it. 

Thanks for this very reasoned response, for me it's so much the rate cut in itself, it's more that we have lost the buffer for further rate increases, these emergency rates won't last forever and when they increase they'll be from a higer starting point than it should have been. It's either migitage or move.

csgohan4 said:

jls85 said:

OP if it makes you feel any better I completely understand where you are coming from. People on this board tend to be sticklers for the Ts and CS, but fail to take into account the fact that just because a company can legally so something doesn’t mean they should do it.

If people fail to understand why a person might feel a little aggrieved to have a company only change the rates when it favours them, even if they are technically allowed to do so, then I doubt any amount of explanation is going to convince them. 

You were willing to take the positive and negative rate changes but the company have so far only passed on the negative to you so far. Whether they are allowed to do so or not, it’s one-sided behaviour and I think they will regret this as I doubt you are the only one that is planning on walking because of it. 

Feeling aggrieved is one thing, but being able to  challenge the lender is another which the OP wanted to do. If one is not happy with the current product, switch/change, stamping your feet to make a point is doing themselves no favours.. The FCA will ignore the other stuff  and focus on the T+Cs which is the reality at present.  

But to choose and pick when to abide by the T+C is sour grapes  when it affects both parties. 

Again OP and this poster chose this mortgage product and complaining their not a BOE product, to reduce while it is bad form for the lender not to reduce rates, their not obliged to and indeed their product is not even a SVR either  which usually reduces with BOE but not always though. 

I wish i was a track mortgage, but you know what, tough, no one can predict the future... The sooner OP and this poster comes to realise this, the quicker they can move. 

As mentioned they can complain, it's free and no harm if they are not happy with their response from the lender, but I highly doubt they will rule in their favour. 

You can't complain about a product you bought went down in price much later, like buying a new car and finding out the same new model reduced in price 2 years down the line. Are you going to sue the dealership for being unfair? You might as well complain about life being unfair. 

Ok, making some progress, you agree it's bad form from CBS. Not sure I agree stamping your feet makes no differnce, it does if you channel it correctly, if enough cutomers formallly complain they may do something, lenders hate having formal complaints and CBS make a big deal on how they get. Getting the issue out there helps, does anyone know of a twitter or facebook page that will get CBS attention? 
 you said "The FCA will ignore the other stuff  and focus on the T+Cs" This is not quite true,  FCA state that Treating Customers Fairly isn’t just a phrase any more, they want companies to do the right thing because it’s in their corporate blood to do so, in this case have CBS adhered to this? I actually agree going to FOS won't get anywhere, I'm just trying to get cutomers to give CBS a poke and let them know it's not gone unoticed.

Glover1862

Thrugelmir said:

BTL is commercial unregulated lending. Not the same as regulated consumer lending.  No amount of complaining is going to have any impact. 

Mine is a residential Flexx product, not BTL, not to say that they can treat BTL customer poorly. Complaining to the lender will certainly have an impact, doing nothing certainly won't.    

csgohan4

Glover1862 said:

silvercar said:

Glover1862 said:

silvercar said:

"when I took this, no BOE trackers for life where available."
You say no BoE trackers were available, so you knew you weren't choosing a BoE tracker. Yet now you are complaining that your mortgage isn't tracking the BoE rate.

Keep up, we've never said we didn't know, this is just going around in circles!! 

Ok, so you knew it wasn't tracking the BoE, but now you think it is unethical that it doesn't do so. 

Yes, unfair and unethical as the lender says they act in the interest of ALL members but have reduced savings rates and other managed variable rates, so why leave the flex rate? this is all mentioned in the thread, no big reveal here. Having a one street of pass on the increases and non of the cuts is unfair, it is perfectly legal though.

jls85 said:

OP if it makes you feel any better I completely understand where you are coming from. People on this board tend to be sticklers for the Ts and CS, but fail to take into account the fact that just because a company can legally so something doesn’t mean they should do it.

If people fail to understand why a person might feel a little aggrieved to have a company only change the rates when it favours them, even if they are technically allowed to do so, then I doubt any amount of explanation is going to convince them. 

You were willing to take the positive and negative rate changes but the company have so far only passed on the negative to you so far. Whether they are allowed to do so or not, it’s one-sided behaviour and I think they will regret this as I doubt you are the only one that is planning on walking because of it. 

Thanks for this very reasoned response, for me it's so much the rate cut in itself, it's more that we have lost the buffer for further rate increases, these emergency rates won't last forever and when they increase they'll be from a higer starting point than it should have been. It's either migitage or move.

csgohan4 said:

jls85 said:

OP if it makes you feel any better I completely understand where you are coming from. People on this board tend to be sticklers for the Ts and CS, but fail to take into account the fact that just because a company can legally so something doesn’t mean they should do it.

If people fail to understand why a person might feel a little aggrieved to have a company only change the rates when it favours them, even if they are technically allowed to do so, then I doubt any amount of explanation is going to convince them. 

You were willing to take the positive and negative rate changes but the company have so far only passed on the negative to you so far. Whether they are allowed to do so or not, it’s one-sided behaviour and I think they will regret this as I doubt you are the only one that is planning on walking because of it. 

Feeling aggrieved is one thing, but being able to  challenge the lender is another which the OP wanted to do. If one is not happy with the current product, switch/change, stamping your feet to make a point is doing themselves no favours.. The FCA will ignore the other stuff  and focus on the T+Cs which is the reality at present.  

But to choose and pick when to abide by the T+C is sour grapes  when it affects both parties. 

Again OP and this poster chose this mortgage product and complaining their not a BOE product, to reduce while it is bad form for the lender not to reduce rates, their not obliged to and indeed their product is not even a SVR either  which usually reduces with BOE but not always though. 

I wish i was a track mortgage, but you know what, tough, no one can predict the future... The sooner OP and this poster comes to realise this, the quicker they can move. 

As mentioned they can complain, it's free and no harm if they are not happy with their response from the lender, but I highly doubt they will rule in their favour. 

You can't complain about a product you bought went down in price much later, like buying a new car and finding out the same new model reduced in price 2 years down the line. Are you going to sue the dealership for being unfair? You might as well complain about life being unfair. 

Ok, making some progress, you agree it's bad form from CBS. Not sure I agree stamping your feet makes no differnce, it does if you channel it correctly, if enough cutomers formallly complain they may do something, lenders hate having formal complaints and CBS make a big deal on how they get. Getting the issue out there helps, does anyone know of a twitter or facebook page that will get CBS attention? 
 you said "The FCA will ignore the other stuff  and focus on the T+Cs" This is not quite true,  FCA state that Treating Customers Fairly isn’t just a phrase any more, they want companies to do the right thing because it’s in their corporate blood to do so, in this case have CBS adhered to this? I actually agree going to FOS won't get anywhere, I'm just trying to get cutomers to give CBS a poke and let them know it's not gone unoticed.

Wish you all the best then, sadly it's not reality progress your making.

You lent money off the bank at a variable rate not pegged to the BOE, you essentially don't want to pay back money because you think their rich. How much more entitled can you get?

I agree to disagree,  what matters in regulated lending is WHAT YOU agreed and signed to.  These products have been around for a long time. They have not become the next PPI Mis sold scandal at present. Your clutching at straws and bitter you didn't get a tracker due to the rates being historically low now

Glover1862

When have I ever said I don't want to pay back the money because they are rich??? I was perfectly happy to pay the increases which CBS justified by movements in the BOE rate, what I object to is this one way street where we only get the increases, they chose to improve their margin, fine, say that it's a commercial decision and drop the - We are fair to ALL members and are an ethical lender. They've not acted in the spirit of the BOE cut from who they have sucked cheap funds from and have their protection. CBS have published they have   a "Large Proportion of Administered Rates" and

"Whilst margins have benefitted from the effects of government funding on retail pricing, the proportion of administered products allows commercial scope to manage margin if required." (Page 9 of the briefing from CBS I linked earlier) A clear admission of a margin grab.

 With regards to "bitter" that's a strong word, I'm not bitter because I have options, I can leave as no ERC or I can move to a fixed product and move funds into an linked offset to mitigate, that's not to say I think they have acted unevenly. you on the other hand on your own admission are paying TWICE the rates we have and probably locked into a fixed rate with a hefty ERC....subconsciously I think this is why you use the word bitter.

I suggest you read the FCA guidance on Treating Customers Fairly, it is far wider than what you have signed.

Glover1862

I'll take some of that back, you admitted to paying 50% more than us, still a significant amount.

dunstonh

I suggest you read the FCA guidance on Treating Customers Fairly, it is far wider than what you have signed.

I suggest you read about how the FCA act on Treating Customers Fairly.     This is not a TFC breach.  The FCA won't even look at it.  They will just pass any enquiry sent to them to the Coventry complaints team who will politely tell you to foxtrot oscar.  The FOS, if you go down that route when then inform you that there is no breach of contract and that its not a base rate tracker.

Glover1862

dunstonh said:

I suggest you read the FCA guidance on Treating Customers Fairly, it is far wider than what you have signed.

I suggest you read about how the FCA act on Treating Customers Fairly.     This is not a TFC breach.  The FCA won't even look at it.  They will just pass any enquiry sent to them to the Coventry complaints team who will politely tell you to foxtrot oscar.  The FOS, if you go down that route when then inform you that there is no breach of contract and that its not a base rate tracker.

I was simply pointing out that TCF was a lot wider than what you have signed, I have said numerous times that I don’t expect this case to be successful with FOS, I’m just saying to affected members to be a pain to CBS and formally complain, they review on the 15th every month, they won’t like the increases in complaints and MAY do something about it.

You previously asked “when” CBS have TFS funding for which I provided proof, no comment on that? Do you think they have acted in the spirit of the boe cut to help the wider economy?