Mortgage Product Fees

_Andy_

Using the logic that a product fee for a mortgage is 'unjust', 'unfair', or a 'ripoff', etc., surely it could also be argued that it's 'unfair' for any company of any nature to dare to make a profit?

As regards to whether anyone has been rude or offensive to the OP, I fail to see how - personally I find dunstonh's car analogy very effective and I can't see why answering the OP's question succinctly should cause offense either.

worcester1

I was charged #749 product/arrangement fee- is this fair/normal practice?
Many thanks in advance for your advice
Allie
x[/quote]

JWSjarcmcd

You and the other people are missing the point here. The OP was simply asking if this is normal practice - At no point did he mention that he wanted to reclaim these fees.

Seriously I really don't care about these fees whether it can or can't be claimed. Time and time again I have noticed an increasing number of post mainly from MarkyMark/Dunston and the rest of the financial/mortgage adviser on this board jumping the gun. They seem to be clans of hyenas jumping at anything that's below the high standards they set for themselves - or should I say anything that will disadvantage the banking industry.

May I remind you that this is a board for the rights of consumers and not for the banking industry? Why can't they set up their own forum? We are here to help & support one another no matter how daft our questions/queries are at times.

Personally, reclaiming up to six years bank charges is something I can't understand but if it's in the interest of the consumer I am up for that. I strongly think that the consumer has the right to challenge anything he/she see as unjust and if this was to lead a disadvantage to the banks, so be it.

If as a result of the consumer winning - the banks decide to stop free banking or create another way to make money off us, then the consumer will simply go on and challenge that as well. At the end of the day, we the consumer has the right to challenge what the majority think are unfair. We should not be deterred by few small-minded people nor should I say "banking industry-minded people"?

dwsjarcmcd

worcester1 wrote: »

I was charged #749 product/arrangement fee- is this fair/normal practice?
Many thanks in advance for your advice
Allie
x[/quot

You and the other people are missing the point here. The OP was simply asking if this is normal practice - At no point did he mention that he wanted to reclaim these fees.

So why wait 2 YEARS to ask if it was fair/normal practice!! Of course the question was really 'can I reclaim these fees?' And the OP has the answer

MarkyMarkD

Money that's "reclaimed" doesn't come from some deep bottomless pit.

If it comes from bank profits - and it undoubtedly does in the short term - then those who suffer are the banks' shareholders, the vast proportion of which are ordinary working people via their pension schemes and other investments.

If, and this is vastly more likely to be the truth in the medium to long-term, banks re-adjust their product terms and conditions to fit in with whatever changes are imposed on them, consumers won't necessarily end up better of at all. As dwsjarmcd says, we used to have a world where all mortgage borrowers paid the same rate and there was no such thing as an application fee. But now we have a world where people pay a vast variety of rates, with a vast variety of application fees. The original world was not better, whatever people may claim, because all of the deals currently available are better value for the right customer than the original deals (where everyone paid SVR all the time) were.

The result of many of the campaigns is "lowest common denominator" pricing, where everything has to be designed for those who (can't/can't be bothered to - take your pick) read product documentation and therefore have to be given something which is dead easy to understand. And because it's so unfair to charge anyone for anything, everyone has to be charged for everything in a disguised way - basically, through higher borrowing rates or lower savings rates.

worcester1

jem16 wrote: »

Simple way to avoid charges is not to break the terms and conditions to whcih you agreed.

jem16 wrote: »

I want to look after myself too and I'm not a bank-loving guy. Neither am I in the finacial services in any way.

I'm simply an ordinary consumer who will probably lose my free banking when the banks decide to bring back the monthly current account charges as a result of this campaign. Then everybody will lose out.

At the end of day it all comes down to the fear factor of losing your ‘free banking’! The banking industry is not a monopolised industry and we the consumer will always have a choice in the matter.

Stop fearing the unknown – we cannot stop an uprising for something that we feel is unfair – be it what the majority or the minority of consumers want. I understand the argument that most of us the consumer never go beyond our current account limit, will not claim back PPI, & etc. The few who decide to challenge what they deem unjust and unfair should not be feared into submission by the majority of us whose main fear is the lost of their ‘free – banking’.

Millions of pounds have been claimed back in unfair bank charges – this coupled with the recent credit crunch still has not stopped banks declaring billions of pounds in profit. The banks are big boys and are capable of looking after themselves – it is not the job of the consumer to fight their case for the fear of losing their ‘free-banking’

In every revolution – it’s always a small part of a community who stands up and fights against what’s unjust. In the long run the rest of that community benefit as a result of what the very few started.

Yes, all these talk about claiming more and more charges from banks when you were made aware of what you were signing to at that time seems plain stupid to me. And like most man-made laws we abide by them regardless how stupid they are at times. Once in a while we get a small minority who challenge these laws and get them changed for the better of society.

Whilst challenging the bank unfair charges is not a very good comparison, it is all down to people’s choices and what we think is unjust or not. So come on let’s take on the banks – we may win some and lose some but at the end of the day no one can accuse of not trying for the fear of losing our so call ‘Free-Banking’

worcester1

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Money that's "reclaimed" doesn't come from some deep bottomless pit.

If it comes from bank profits - and it undoubtedly does in the short term - then those who suffer are the banks' shareholders, the vast proportion of which are ordinary working people via their pension schemes and other investments.

If, and this is vastly more likely to be the truth in the medium to long-term, banks re-adjust their product terms and conditions to fit in with whatever changes are imposed on them, consumers won't necessarily end up better of at all. As dwsjarmcd says, we used to have a world where all mortgage borrowers paid the same rate and there was no such thing as an application fee. But now we have a world where people pay a vast variety of rates, with a vast variety of application fees. The original world was not better, whatever people may claim, because all of the deals currently available are better value for the right customer than the original deals (where everyone paid SVR all the time) were.

The result of many of the campaigns is "lowest common denominator" pricing, where everything has to be designed for those who (can't/can't be bothered to - take your pick) read product documentation and therefore have to be given something which is dead easy to understand. And because it's so unfair to charge anyone for anything, everyone has to be charged for everything in a disguised way - basically, through higher borrowing rates or lower savings rates.

You my friend fail to see that regardless what mortgage product the banks offer us as oppose to when "mortgage borrowers paid the same rate and there was no such thing as an application fee".They will still make a massive profit on that product - more much than the measly arrangement fee we are charged.

What are your views on PPI, bank account charges and the other charges people have successfully reclaimed against?

Am right to assume that in MarkyMark dictatorial world, consumers should not try and claim for anything that they knowingly signed for in the first instance?

jem16

worcester1 wrote: »

Whilst challenging the bank unfair charges is not a very good comparison, it is all down to people’s choices and what we think is unjust or not. So come on let’s take on the banks – we may win some and lose some but at the end of the day no one can accuse of not trying for the fear of losing our so call ‘Free-Banking’[/COLOR]

Sorry it's nothing to do with fear.

I object to losing my "perks" because of the minority of people who can't run their bank account properly.

We don't have a right to withdraw more money than we have in the bank so we shouldn't be writing cheques that will bounce, setting up direct debits when we know the funds won't be there etc etc.

If I don't have the money I don't buy something - simple as that!

As to the bank's "unjust" charges - if people don't abuse their accounts then there would be no charge applied.

Am right to assume that in MarkyMark dictatorial world, consumers should not try and claim for anything that they knowingly signed for in the first instance?

If you don't like the conditions don't sign up for them.

The problem is that a lot of people don't read the conditions in the first place and then moan about them afterwards.

MarkyMarkD

worcester1 wrote: »

Am right to assume that in MarkyMark dictatorial world, consumers should not try and claim for anything that they knowingly signed for in the first instance?

Obviously, yes. I don't see anything dictatorial about that. I've never reclaimed anything where I knowingly signed up for it in the first place.

I have reclaimed MEAFs, where they have been unduly increased from the amount agreed to.

I have asked banks to refund late payment charges (on credit cards) or rejected DD charges (on bank accounts) on a discretionary basis and in a nice way. I don't see anything wrong with that.

But I haven't threatened legal action and thrown my toys out of the pram in respect of any charges which I had knowingly signed up for.

worcester1

jem16 wrote: »

Sorry it's nothing to do with fear.

I object to losing my "perks" because of the minority of people who can't run their bank account properly.

We don't have a right to withdraw more money than we have in the bank so we shouldn't be writing cheques that will bounce, setting up direct debits when we know the funds won't be there etc etc.

If I don't have the money I don't buy something - simple as that!

As to the bank's "unjust" charges - if people don't abuse their accounts then there would be no charge applied.



If you don't like the conditions don't sign up for them.

The problem is that a lot of people don't read the conditions in the first place and then moan about them afterwards.

Maybe the fault does not lie with the very few who successive claim these charges or are trying to.

Maybe the system in place is not rigid enough – Maybe it’s neither legal nor fair – hence why they can successfully claim these charges back.

I think it’s unfair of you to blame the minority of consumers who successfully managed to claim back any charges – Is it possible that the banks are bunch of Dell boys who have been screwing consumers for such a long time regardless what the T’s & C’s consumers signed

At the end of the day – you can’t measure everyone with your righteous yardstick. Lucky you – you are so organized and careful to read everything before signing on the dotted line. You never go above your current account limit because a) you’re financially more secured and manage your budget better than the average Joe. A blue Peter badge it’s on its way to you.

The bottom line is that a lot of people have managed to claim back these charges – what does that tell you? Eeeemmmmmmmm the charges are not righteous and are illegal.

Why should anyone care whether you agree or how it will potentially destroy your free-banking benefits? Maybe the banks should get their houses in order to stop the minority of customers claiming back these charges. Or are they too concern on how to make that extra billion in profit from their commercial customers?

Trying_to_be_good

So can we please have a sticky so we don't have threads like this every week?

Something along the lines of, "The product fee is part of the pricing of the deal you are signing up for, just like the interest rate and any early repayment charges - therefore you cannot claim it back as unfair/illegal/immoral. If you think it is too high, go for a different deal with a lower fee (and probably a higher interest rate)."?