Building society left us on the streets!

Four_Oaks_Bookworm

Section62 said:

Four_Oaks_Bookworm said:

Section62 said:

Four_Oaks_Bookworm said:

It was a structural report on two single-skin walls (which we knew about and were indicated in the original homebuyer report). It's now been done, and is with the lender as of this morning (still no decision on release of funds) but not before we've had to spend >£1000 on storage, hotels and emergency clothing and food. 

Was the homebuyer report done through the lender in any way, or did they just have a separate valuation?

No we commissioned the HBR ourselves independently, it's not tied to this lender.  They just sent a separate valuer for their purposes

Ok, so the success of a complaint about the bank/BS is likely to hinge on when they became aware of the information which caused them concern and how efficiently they dealt with that information.  Because the information came via you (/someone working for you) an ombudsman would also take into account whether the way the information was passed on (e.g. timing/method) contributed to the outcome.

The role of the ombudsman is to see whether you were treated fairly (in the circumstances) not to punish the organisation for errors (the "slap down" comment earlier in the thread is largely nonsense). If you have been treated unfairly then the aim is to restore the situation to how it would have been if the unfairness hadn't happened, in other words to cover any losses and recognise the 'cost' to you of dealing with the situation.

The timescales for ombudsman complaints is such that it won't help you resolve the immediate problems - so see that only as something which might help you get some financial redress if the bank themselves won't pay up.  Complaining to the bank can get them to expedite things, but for the time being, make sure your own personal focus is on getting through to completion, not on the complaint.

They were provided with the survey on 14th June (We have a time stamp /screenshot from when it was uploaded to the application portal by our broker, who also ticked a box on the application to confirm that the property required some renovations).  But they only decided to pay any attention to it on 4th August, completion day, having issued the offer and confirmed release.   They then asked for an additional survey (at our cost, for now..) which was provided to them on 6th August, but until today still hadn't reviewed that new survey. 

FOS has opened a case and informed the bank of the case number, but as you say it won't be actioned until we've exhausted the bank's own complaints process (it can only help for the bank to know that the FOS is already aware of the situation however?).  We're getting there now, it seems the valuation team have extracted collective digits and are now processing the funds release 'as quickly as possible'.  Will update asap, thanks for everyone's advice and support

Section62

Stu_N_ said:

Regarding my 'slap down' comment, I merely meant that something like in this example: https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decisions-case-studies/case-studies/bank-carried-wrong-kind-survey

"To put things right, we said it would be fair for the bank to pay for the cost of some of the repairs. We also told the bank to compensate Wendy for her trouble and upset."

That's a "Case study", which I suspect is made up as an illustration. In any event, the BiB is just a statement of fact and I wouldn't consider it to be even a mild rebuke, let alone the words you used.

The reality of ombudsman decisions is normally something far more nuanced. The following one is a randomly picked good example of the normal approach, which is on a broadly similar theme to the OP's situation (but I'm not suggesting is the same as their position).

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/62396/DRN2134225.pdf

That said, Mr and Mrs M weren’t given a guarantee of lending or promised a mortgage offer by a particular date. They chose to move and put property into storage. Decisions in principle are only an indication of what can be borrowed. In light of this, I  think it wouldn’t be fair or reasonable to refund storage costs. It’s clear that Mr and Mrs M did suffer trouble and upset, but money never really truly compensates for distress or inconvenience. Mortgage applications require consumers to commit time and effort to the process so I  can’t say it’s fair or reasonable for Mr M’s lost earning time to be compensated. I  think £500 compensation is fair and reasonable in  all the circumstances, and reflects the trouble and upset caused by the delays, failure to clearly set out what was required, and the raised expectations which were then dashed. As only £400 has been paid, [****] should pay the outstanding £100.

The quoted paragraph and BiB is a demonstration of the 'fair' and 'impartial' approach - the ombudsman doesn't set out to 'punish' the bank, only to make sure there is a fair and reasonable outcome.  And things the claimant thinks they should be entitled to aren't always agreed to by the ombudsman. (note the bank had already agreed and paid £400 of the £500)

kirtondm

This is a very different case in that the lender has confirmed to the solicitor that the monies were to be transferred pending completion it is not an agreement in principle. The fact that contracts have been exchanged means that the OP is liable for all the costs of the delay in completing to the vendor and of course their own costs. It is going to be at least a 4 figure sum to put the OP back in the same position as if completion took place on the day.

I am amazed that it was not elevated higher with the lender on the day

Unless of course the solicitor has mucked up and trying to cover themselves.

teachfast

kirtondm said:

Unless of course the solicitor has mucked up and trying to cover themselves.

That seems the most likely to me in this case.

Four_Oaks_Bookworm

teachfast said:

kirtondm said:

Unless of course the solicitor has mucked up and trying to cover themselves.

That seems the most likely to me in this case.

No this is absolutely not the case, the solicitor has acted exactly as they should have, checking and double checking with the lender at every turn and receiving reassuring answers until completion day.  The lender has already admitted verbally on several occasions to the solicitor that they messed up and 'missed' the survey document that was provided on 12th June.  It's now at a high level in their complaints team.  Meanwhile, funds have finally been released and the keys are waiting for us; just got to wait for the complaints process to go its course. 

We will of course be seeking reimbursement for costs incurred (well into 4 figures, especially given we're having to double-pay a removal firm), plus additional recompense for 'distress and emotional damage' (I work from home and so have been disrupted, my teenager is revising for important exams without most of the necessary books as they're in storage, etc, etc ).  Have no idea what to ask for in this case however, can anyone advise of 'reasonable amounts' etc?  I had plucked a figure from the air of £200/day/person (x 4 people x 9 days), but not sure whether that's realistic?
TIA

Section62

Four_Oaks_Bookworm said:

We will of course be seeking reimbursement for costs incurred (well into 4 figures, especially given we're having to double-pay a removal firm), plus additional recompense for 'distress and emotional damage' (I work from home and so have been disrupted, my teenager is revising for important exams without most of the necessary books as they're in storage, etc, etc ).  Have no idea what to ask for in this case however, can anyone advise of 'reasonable amounts' etc?  I had plucked a figure from the air of £200/day/person (x 4 people x 9 days), but not sure whether that's realistic?
TIA

One approach is to have a look through some ombudsman decisions to get a feel for what you could expect, then add a cheeky little bit more.

Costs like double-paying the removal firm are easy to quantify, and in theory you should get those back in full unless there was some error on your (or your solicitor's) part.

Less tangible factors such as that for "distress and emotional damage" are harder to quantify. See the above example about someone's lost earnings - the ombudsman will take into account the inevitable disruption and problems of moving and also the complainant's culpability in specific aspects.  E.g. assuming it was your choice to move house when your teenager was doing important exams (rather than after the exams were over) it won't be "fair" to make the bank compensate them for having their exam revision disrupted. Likewise, your opting to leave 'necessary' books in storage is not the bank's fault. (not a criticism of you, just pointing out how the 'other side' could see it). In that situation it would probably have been more reasonable to incur additional tangible costs to get the books back out of storage (or buy replacements), rather than attempting to claim a 'distress' payment.

To put it succinctly, the ombudsman (if it goes that far) will probably view excessive 'emotional damage' claims with an element of "time to put your big boy's/girl's pants on".  Stuff happens.  Therefore you need to tailor your requests in such a way that you aren't seen as milking it. Emphasise the direct costs and the 'cost' of your time, go easy on the subjective stuff.

In my own experience, £200 per person per day for all family members is far OTT.  Some of you will (presumably) have been going about your normalish daily routines, at least on some of those days.

As a guide amount, banks usually seem to have a figure between £10 and £20 per hour of actual time spent dealing with the problem. Sometimes called a 'time and trouble' payment.  So if you were on the phone to someone for an hour trying to resolve the issue, that's up to £20.  Try to go through the phone calls you've made/emails sent to quantify the hours you've had to put in. You can often negotiate the actual hourly rate.

The approach the bank takes to goodwill varies hugely between bank and between situations.  What the bank offers you will depend on how quickly they want this to go away. But realistically I would have in mind a figure in the range of £200 to £500 per person (in total) if I were in your situation. Bearing in mind though that although 4 of you were affected, only one or two would (normally) be (this transaction) customers of the bank, and the bank and ombudsman may take the view that only those customers need to be compensated.

Finally, look at the total figure and ask yourself whether - if you were the manager having to sign the payment off - you would be able to justify that amount to an internal auditor, and if you feel the time the cost of corresponding with you and the ombudsman to argue the amount down would be greater or less than just paying up.

If the bank don't agree the amount you want, ask for a formal 'deadlock letter'. This enables you to go to the ombudsman if you wish. Sometimes asking for one will cause the bank to have a rethink, but not always.

Good luck.

kirtondm

I would imagine all costs reimbrused ( remember to claim for everything reasonable hotel costs etc ) + the costs the vendor and higher up the chain will no doubt pass onto you + £500 - £1000 for the inconvenience?

peterhjohnson

Section62 said:

To put it succinctly, the ombudsman (if it goes that far) will probably view excessive 'emotional damage' claims with an element of "time to put your big boy's/girl's pants on".  Stuff happens.  Therefore you need to tailor your requests in such a way that you aren't seen as milking it. Emphasise the direct costs and the 'cost' of your time, go easy on the subjective stuff.

The stuff wouldn't have happened if the bank had done their job properly! The OP and family have been put through the wringer for 10 days.  Frankly, they deserve paying the cost of a decent 10 day holiday. Will it bring the banking industry to its knees to pay up if every victim of a failed completion "milks" it? No way!

babyblade41

My personal opinion is to quantify costs that you can prove and have receipts for those are easy.. where you might fall down is the stress etc.

If you are offered some compo for this then accept what is on offer as a court might not look at your calculation of costs due to stress are acceptable .

When I took a removal company to small claims  I was not awarded anything for stress even though it was only for 100.00 and was extremely stressful .It  included  an animal member of the family that had to be left behind for a week as the removals majorly cocked up 

Stick to what is tangible costs 

Section62

peterhjohnson said:

The stuff wouldn't have happened if the bank had done their job properly!

The bank will argue that 'doing their job properly' includes protecting the retail deposits of other customers, and in this case being a building society, of other members.

The error appears to have been confirming release of funds before they had reviewed relevant information. Once the error was noticed, stopping the release was the correct thing to do, so a review could be carried out.

Mistakes like that happen.  We all make them from time to time.  If you want banks to 'do their job properly' and never make mistakes then you need to accept they will have to charge more for their services (to cover increased system costs) and that customers will experience being "put through the wringer" even more during the application process to make sure every 't' is crossed and every 'i' dotted.

Be careful what you wish for....

peterhjohnson said:

The OP and family have been put through the wringer for 10 days.  Frankly, they deserve paying the cost of a decent 10 day holiday. Will it bring the banking industry to its knees to pay up if every victim of a failed completion "milks" it? No way!

What do you mean by the "banking industry"?  The industry is made up of many different companies of different types. Whilst it might be superficially attractive to want the [evil] "banking industry" punished in some way, the reality is that any money paid out will come from other people, not the "banking industry".  People will pay more in charges, get less dividend, have reduced pensions, or in the case of mutual building societies, member benefits will be reduced (e.g. more expensive mortgages, less income from savings)

That's why the ombudsman process seeks a "fair" outcome. By doing so they are not looking to protect 'fat cats' or the "banking industry" - there is a recognition that a free-for-all for some would result in other people getting a worse deal.

As a member of many mutual building societies (very likely including the one the OP is using) I would object to the idea that it would be Ok for anyone to "milk" it.  The system needs to be 'fair' in the round, otherwise we will all suffer the consequences.

But the OP should absolutely expect the organisation at fault here to cover their tangible losses, and make a reasonable gesture to reflect the time and trouble they and their family have been put to.