Halifax close and pay off homeowner loan

siberianteddy

Well I suppose this is unusual situation - in that I received some good news from the Halifax today, but I am also a little confused as to why. 

In brief I am about 22 1/2 years into a 25 year mortgage so not long to go. I’m not in arrears nor have I been , nor do I have an outstanding claim with the Halifax over PPI , or anything else for that matter. A few years into my mortgage I took out a homeowner loan which was the only option available to me at the time rather than extending my mortgage. I was a single person with limited income but wanted to do some home improvements. So they offered me a homeowner loan for the same term remaining on the mortgage. I’ve paid that monthly amount separately, alongside my mortgage ever since. 

So fast forward to today - I have received a letter from the Halifax about that homeowner loan, basically telling me they have “made a commercial decision to close the homeowner loan”  and saying they will clear the outstanding balance (which is just short of £3000) on my behalf. Obviously I had to read it twice, if not three times, to be sure I’d got that right! 

Now being a slightly suspicious person anyway, and then bearing in mind that usually our financial institutions in this country don’t give anything back to a customer unless their hand is forced, I’m wondering what this is all about. In fact I’d go so far as to say that if this is a commercial decision it must be a quick fix to shut something down that would otherwise cost them more money? Well that’s what the sceptic in me says.

So, any thoughts anyone? Or any information? Anyone else had the same thing happen? 

[Deleted User]

What do you want out of this situation beyond it being some good luck for you?
Bank may have decided it was miss-sold and thus need to refund you something but the amount was close to the amount left and chose to write it off. Who knows. 

I would suggest you don't look a gift horse in the mouth

siberianteddy

Gosh Farfetch , that feels a bit blunt! 

Of course, I think we all understand the concept of not looking a gift horse in the mouth,  but I hoped I’d explained what I was wondering about in my post. But I’ll expand on that then, if it seems I need to.

Apart from wondering generally why they would do this, and to find out if anyone knew anything about this new generous approach, it occurred to me that they might be trying to shut me up before I raise something, pay me off, close me down etc, because actually there’s a bigger picture and a bigger issue - one that perhaps me and other consumers might not know about. I’ve always taken a questioning approach and I never accept something just because the financial institution states it! I don’t imagine we would need a forum like this if we could trust the banks etc in everything they do…. 

Sorry if I’ve misunderstood the purpose of the forum? 

Gunwoody

Well said SiberianTeddy.... that's exactly why forums like this exist. When it comes to Banks, there is absolutely no such thing as 'good luck'....they don't run like a lottery.

[Deleted User]

siberianteddy said:

Gosh Farfetch , that feels a bit blunt! 

Of course, I think we all understand the concept of not looking a gift horse in the mouth,  but I hoped I’d explained what I was wondering about in my post. But I’ll expand on that then, if it seems I need to.

Apart from wondering generally why they would do this, and to find out if anyone knew anything about this new generous approach, it occurred to me that they might be trying to shut me up before I raise something, pay me off, close me down etc, because actually there’s a bigger picture and a bigger issue - one that perhaps me and other consumers might not know about. I’ve always taken a questioning approach and I never accept something just because the financial institution states it! I don’t imagine we would need a forum like this if we could trust the banks etc in everything they do…. 

Sorry if I’ve misunderstood the purpose of the forum? 

My reply was to garner information, you have had some good fortune (like the old "bank error in your favour" card) yet you immediately went to an assumption there might have been a cover up of some kind.

I was asking you what you wanted from this? Are you hoping for some free money above and beyond you have been given and if so, do you have evidence that you are owed money? 

You are assuming that the bank is engaged in some nefarious activity hoping to keep you quiet. Banks do not do that, they risk huge fines for trying to cover stuff up e.g. Clydesdale Bank got fined nearly £21m for trying to block PPI complaints by pretending they didn't have data. It could be that they realised they do not have the appropriate documentation after a review, making the debt unenforceable hence writing it off. It could be a routine review triggered by another complaint. Perhaps they decided you should have been offered a different product instead of the loan. The bank most likely won't tell you the specifics anyway

Further, financial services have time bar rules they can apply - 6 years from taking out a product and 3 years from when you knew, or could reasonably have known, you had cause for a complaint. You took a loan out 20 years ago (so 6 year rule is in place), you have been paying the loan and getting statements every year which would activate the 3 year rule a long time back, so even if you wanted to complain about it, chances are they could time bar it which rules out that angle.

Therefore, what do you intend to present as a case to them with regards to wrong doing and again, please can you clarify what you hope to achieve above and beyond the loan cancellation?

Gunwoody

Actually, the 6 year rule is 'within 6 years of your problem happening' NOT 'taking out the product.' So they would not be barred from seeking a complaint should that be warranted.

I dont think the OP is seeking some Eldorado of further 'free money' as you put it. But i do think its fair that they are asking in general if anyone knows the 'why' behind it. You've made some good suggestions in that respect but it seems odd that they (the bank) wouldn't openly explain the reasoning behind their actions in this case of benificence.

Their lack of disclosure does immediately make people suspicious and look for ulterior motives. You'd have to admit - they do have form in this respect.

[Deleted User]

Gunwoody said:

Actually, the 6 year rule is 'within 6 years of your problem happening' NOT 'taking out the product.' So they would not be barred from seeking a complaint should that be warranted.

DISP rule is  

(2) more than:

1. (a) 

   six years after the event complained of; or (if later)

2. (b) 

   three years from the date on which the complainant became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that he had cause for complaint;

The event complained of is taking out the product, not the problem happening. If you used your interpretation it would mean that firms could never time bar complaints as any problem could allow you to restart the clock. I suspect you are probably taking the wording on the FOS site but misunderstanding what "the problem happening" means. Read the sample case if you're not clear what it means - "Tony" took out a card in 2012, complained in 2021 after hearing about irresponsible lending and the FOS agreed it was time barred under 6 years - they allowed it under the 3 year rule 

I am not interested in conspiracy theories, OP has no evidence of anything being hidden or deliberately not disclosed.

siberianteddy

Gosh, I thought this was supposed to be a friendly place -  I didn’t expect to be accused of being some sort of money grabbing consumer who was on the compensation trail! I feel somewhat attacked for raising a new topic and daring to comment on the commonly known and somewhat  unscrupulous actions, selling tactics and overcharging etc that our banks have been caught out for. Those issues are well documented. 

I did not join , nor raise my topic, to be cross examined by some self styled arbiter of contributions, 
who dives straight onto a new member and makes assumptions as to their motivations and seemingly, their level of intelligence. Indeed someone who seemingly exists here to defend the banking institutions that I dared to wonder about. I had hoped for some general discussion, not dismissive arrogance. I raised my topic in a fair and reasonable tone, genuinely intrigued by the letter I had received, and wondering what this might be about:

 - was there a newly uncovered (or about to be uncovered) scandal of further mis-selling (not exactly the most outrageous thought is it !?)
- were there other people out there suddenly receiving similar good news (tactics?)
- or had this been occurring for a while and I was late to the party?
- could there be a consumer issue that others needed to be aware of or pursue, so as to receive similarly good news and a closure? 

What I got however, was accusations of a money grabbing strategy being pursued by me on unsubstantiated grounds against the poor, decent upstanding and never guilty of anything financial institutions. All nicely thrown in with demands for evidence, and pretty much a dollop of derision for good measure - to make sure I knew my place and to derail my integrity, thus diminishing any notion from anyone else that I might be worthy of talking to! Very disappointing. And I wouldn’t blame Gunwoody for not bothering to respond further. We’ve been summarily dismissed it seems. I shall have to look for another forum, which hopefully runs more like the one I have moderated on for 17 years but is of no use to me on this particular type of topic.

Before I move on however, I have one final point. In terms of the banks decision to close and pay off a loan, they state this is a “commercial” decision. In my experience -  yes it’s a good idea not to assume everyone who asks a question here is some sort of lowlife, low intelligence, compo seeking, thrower of arms into the air, lacking of rationale idiot - a commercial decision in business is made to strategically maximise profit,  minimise risk.

When I found out any more on this topic I will likely not bother to report back to the jungle here. Thanks however to Gunwoody for attempting to converse on the matter, and for his/her support.

Rosco32

Sorry you have had to experience this as a newbie. I agree, it was uncalled for. You can use the ignore option so that a member cannot see anything you post etc. Please do come back with an update, as it's always useful to other members who are in the same position.

Frequentlyhere

Just to second that I also thought it was a perfectly reasonable question to ask, I'd have done the same. I find farfetch's take unnecessarily hostile.

I don't have any insight as to why they might have done it, but it'd be good to understand.

Understanding how banks think can be very helpful in unforeseeable ways in the future. I certainly don't imagine they did it from the goodness of their heart. So I too would be interested if there's any follow up.

martinbainbridge1975

I would certainly be asking the questions regarding this decision.

As for the time barring mentioned above, from memory of working with PPI complaints and I am scraping the old memory banks her and i think the bank would have had to write to you giving the opportunity to log a complaint if there was a known issue, then the 6 years would start from there. I may be wrong with this but I have something in the back of my mind saying this is what the process is - it was 4 years ago I worked with PPI complaints and I have slept since then