YBS refusing to cancel pending product transfer despite clear mistake – serious financial impact

silvercar

is it possible to move your current mortgage at the end of the term? So you won’t then go onto the new deal?

poseidon1

Just out of curiosity, just how big is this mortgage that a 0.6% rate difference will cause significant financial detriment.

On say a £200k mortgage the additional interest would be £100 p.m. Maybe I am looking at this from the viewpoint of a lofty ivory tower , but if an extra £100 monthly ( in this example) would stretch your finances to the breaking point, perhaps you were already seriously overstretched even at the lower rate?

Give the outcome in the ombudsman case supplied by @MyRealNameToo, its arguable that trying to remortgage elsewhere ( assuming you can jump through the affordability hoops with a new lender) is likely to be even more financially harmful in the short term, given YBS applying their ERC on exit of the 5.1% product.

Your case for YBS applying their discretion to let you off the hook, seems founded on the supposition you will suffer significant financial detriment. Do really believe the ombudsman will agree this is the case on the numbers you eventually supply ?

ACG

This is my understnding of the principles:

FCA Principle 6 – Customers’ Interests
“A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly.”

FCA Principle 7 – Communications with Clients
“A firm must pay due regard to the information needs of its clients and communicate information to them in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading.”

Consumer Duty (PRIN 2A.2.1R)
“A firm must act to deliver good outcomes for retail customers.”

Consumer Duty – Avoiding Foreseeable Harm (PRIN 2A.2.8R)
“A firm must avoid causing foreseeable harm to retail customers through its conduct, products or services.”

Treating customers fairly is more about customers as a whole. For example, if they gave you what you wanted but enforced the rule on everyone else, that could be deemed as not treating you fairly.

Communicate with clients - they provided you with the paperwork that confirmed you can not back out.

Good outcomes is about providing products and services that work as intended.

Avoiding foreseeable harm - Arguably. But a lot depends on how much this is going to affect you and more importantly what has changed. Why was there no harm when you agreed to the mortgage but now there is.

All of these points could be argued as a reason to not do what you want. I do 100% see your point btw and I think most other lenders you would have been fine with. But every lender has their quirks and I suppose this is one of Leeds.