How far will house prices fall [volume 4]
Discussion
Sheepshanks said:
...but the contract also says that terms on the offer letter will prevail, and the offer letter says the margin is fixed for the whole term.
If it was a retail consumer contract I would agree that it was 'unfair' but, it isnt. They are commercial and need to be treated as such.The person entering into the contract shouldn't be considered a layman, they should know to take advice.
Unfortunatley most people don't seem to understand this.
Jimmyarm said:
If it was a retail consumer contract I would agree that it was 'unfair' but, it isnt. They are commercial and need to be treated as such.
The person entering into the contract shouldn't be considered a layman, they should know to take advice.
Unfortunatley most people don't seem to understand this.
I think you need to read the whole of the story, any reading of the terms, layman or pro, would indicate the tracker signed up to was a tracker, with specific terms that over rode the general. But for some reason the general were invoked over the specifics, and the judge has said that's ok. That makes a mockery of the whole thing, regardless of the end user's status.The person entering into the contract shouldn't be considered a layman, they should know to take advice.
Unfortunatley most people don't seem to understand this.
Jimmyarm said:
If it was a retail consumer contract I would agree that it was 'unfair' but, it isnt. They are commercial and need to be treated as such.
It's got nothing to do with being "unfair", the contract states the offer will prevail and the offer says the margin is fixed.It's hard to imagine how it could be more black and white. The Judge's decision seems perverse.
Sheepshanks said:
It's got nothing to do with being "unfair", the contract states the offer will prevail and the offer says the margin is fixed.
It's hard to imagine how it could be more black and white. The Judge's decision seems perverse.
The contract also says that they can vary the rate.It's hard to imagine how it could be more black and white. The Judge's decision seems perverse.
A harsh lesson perhaps but, it is a commercial contract not a retail one.
The judge is perfectly correct.
If you can't understand that these loans are taken out by businesses that's sole intention is to make a profit for the owner of such businesses then you will never see why the judge made this decision.
These btl mortgages are not a normal consumer !mortgage and shouldn't be treated as such by anyone, I am happy that the court is seeing this.
A
They (the landlords) are throwing good money after bad and there is no positive outcome for the if they win or lose.
jdw1234 said:
The same ruling has been made several time now with different lenders.
It has also been confirmed the lenders are within their rights to call the entire mortgage with 30 days notice.
That is the thing, even if they win on the fixed rate argument the building society are within their rights to call in the debt within 30 days. Either way they lose. A lender being able to call in a commercial debt with a notice period is quite normal.It has also been confirmed the lenders are within their rights to call the entire mortgage with 30 days notice.
They (the landlords) are throwing good money after bad and there is no positive outcome for the if they win or lose.
Sheepshanks said:
The contract also states that in there are inconsistencies between the contract and the offer then the offer will prevail. The offer says the margin is fixed for term.
It makes no difference at the end of the day, as a court has decided(for now)2Like I have said three times, it is a!commercial contract and the business owner that took it out should have doe their due diligence and had it checked out.
How much will it take for all these Btl people tocrrealise that it isn't just an easy cash generator ?
Jimmyarm said:
Like I have said three times, it is a!commercial contract and the business owner that took it out should have doe their due diligence and had it checked out.
Which part of 'the premium is fixed until the term end and terms in the offer prevail' are you struggling with?Jimmyarm said:
How much will it take for all these Btl people tocrrealise that it isn't just an easy cash generator ?
They've gone after a group of people in the first place (those with more than 3 BTL mortgages) that there's likely to be little sympathy for. But they admitted it could affect ordinary homebuyers too.Edited by Sheepshanks on Thursday 29th January 23:50
Jimmyarm said:
The contract also says that they can vary the rate.
A harsh lesson perhaps but, it is a commercial contract not a retail one.
The judge is perfectly correct.
If you can't understand that these loans are taken out by businesses that's sole intention is to make a profit for the owner of such businesses then you will never see why the judge made this decision.
These btl mortgages are not a normal consumer !mortgage and shouldn't be treated as such by anyone, I am happy that the court is seeing this.
You sound like you have a massive chip on your shoulder quite frankly.A harsh lesson perhaps but, it is a commercial contract not a retail one.
The judge is perfectly correct.
If you can't understand that these loans are taken out by businesses that's sole intention is to make a profit for the owner of such businesses then you will never see why the judge made this decision.
These btl mortgages are not a normal consumer !mortgage and shouldn't be treated as such by anyone, I am happy that the court is seeing this.
Making a profit is perfectly legal and clearly given this is a zero sum game (look it up) the profit either goes to the banks or the BTL landlords.
The implication from your post is that somehow the judge is justified because profits to a bank(!) are more virtuous that BTL???? On what planet is that a valid argument???
As I said originally it should be an issue of contract law.
Do you think that retail mortgage contracts aren't subject to the rule of law??
Retail or commercial should make no difference.
You do what the contract says you can do.
Now there is some ambiguity here since the contracts contradict each other so I am not surprised that it has come to them needing a judgement on it.
It just appears very clear (to me) that the priority lies with the specific offer contract NOT the generic T&Cs AND the T&Cs state where the priority is yet the judge has decided that doesn't stand.
It's off.
Judgement here...
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2015/135....
Seems fairly good legal precedent set. Seems limited/no chance of appeal. West Brom cleverly got the judge to also rule it is fair to call in mortgages within 30 days.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2015/135....
Seems fairly good legal precedent set. Seems limited/no chance of appeal. West Brom cleverly got the judge to also rule it is fair to call in mortgages within 30 days.
walm said:
Do you think that retail mortgage contracts aren't subject to the rule of law??
Retail or commercial should make no difference.
A consumer is not expected to have the same understanding as a company or a professional in the business.
If a business chose not to have a lawyer review a business deal than any small print/future interpretation ambiguity was a risk they took.
From the judgement
[quote]Mr. Smith submitted that the right to give one month's notice requiring payment of the loan was inconsistent with the provisions in the Offer which stated in Box 3 that the term of the mortgage was 25 years, in Box 5 that the total amount to be paid back will vary if the borrower does not keep the mortgage for 25 years and in Box 6 that the borrower agreed to make a total of 299 monthly payments. Mr. Smith submitted that these Boxes made clear that the mortgage was to last for 25 years which was inconsistent with the lender having the right to terminate the mortgage on one month's notice.
[/quote]
Talk about desperate attempt by the claimant.
[quote]Mr. Smith submitted that the right to give one month's notice requiring payment of the loan was inconsistent with the provisions in the Offer which stated in Box 3 that the term of the mortgage was 25 years, in Box 5 that the total amount to be paid back will vary if the borrower does not keep the mortgage for 25 years and in Box 6 that the borrower agreed to make a total of 299 monthly payments. Mr. Smith submitted that these Boxes made clear that the mortgage was to last for 25 years which was inconsistent with the lender having the right to terminate the mortgage on one month's notice.
[/quote]
Talk about desperate attempt by the claimant.
Well the key here is "Is there a clear and irreconcilable discrepancy between them ?" referring to the "rate will be +1.99% for the term" and "we can vary the rate whenever the hell we feel like it and terminate the loan with 30 days notice".
This ruling appears to fly in the face of the spirit of the law.
In particular - why have the clause stating that the offer takes priority over the mortgage conditions if no discrepancy exists!!!
It absolutely sounds like they wanted to have their cake and eat it.
No one in their right mind would sign up to a 30 day notice BTL mortgage.
West Brom clearly would have absolutely ZERO business if that was the true offer.
Likewise if they offer a tracker product where they can vary the spread on a whim they would have zero business.
That is absolutely no way to do business.
Idiotic.
This ruling appears to fly in the face of the spirit of the law.
In particular - why have the clause stating that the offer takes priority over the mortgage conditions if no discrepancy exists!!!
It absolutely sounds like they wanted to have their cake and eat it.
No one in their right mind would sign up to a 30 day notice BTL mortgage.
West Brom clearly would have absolutely ZERO business if that was the true offer.
Likewise if they offer a tracker product where they can vary the spread on a whim they would have zero business.
That is absolutely no way to do business.
Idiotic.
walm said:
Well the key here is "Is there a clear and irreconcilable discrepancy between them ?" referring to the "rate will be +1.99% for the term" and "we can vary the rate whenever the hell we feel like it and terminate the loan with 30 days notice".
This ruling appears to fly in the face of the spirit of the law.
In particular - why have the clause stating that the offer takes priority over the mortgage conditions if no discrepancy exists!!!
It absolutely sounds like they wanted to have their cake and eat it.
No one in their right mind would sign up to a 30 day notice BTL mortgage.
West Brom clearly would have absolutely ZERO business if that was the true offer.
Likewise if they offer a tracker product where they can vary the spread on a whim they would have zero business.
That is absolutely no way to do business.
Idiotic.
Completely agree. Typical bank miscreant behaviourThis ruling appears to fly in the face of the spirit of the law.
In particular - why have the clause stating that the offer takes priority over the mortgage conditions if no discrepancy exists!!!
It absolutely sounds like they wanted to have their cake and eat it.
No one in their right mind would sign up to a 30 day notice BTL mortgage.
West Brom clearly would have absolutely ZERO business if that was the true offer.
Likewise if they offer a tracker product where they can vary the spread on a whim they would have zero business.
That is absolutely no way to do business.
Idiotic.
Burwood said:
walm said:
Well the key here is "Is there a clear and irreconcilable discrepancy between them ?" referring to the "rate will be +1.99% for the term" and "we can vary the rate whenever the hell we feel like it and terminate the loan with 30 days notice".
This ruling appears to fly in the face of the spirit of the law.
In particular - why have the clause stating that the offer takes priority over the mortgage conditions if no discrepancy exists!!!
It absolutely sounds like they wanted to have their cake and eat it.
No one in their right mind would sign up to a 30 day notice BTL mortgage.
West Brom clearly would have absolutely ZERO business if that was the true offer.
Likewise if they offer a tracker product where they can vary the spread on a whim they would have zero business.
That is absolutely no way to do business.
Idiotic.
Completely agree. Typical bank miscreant behaviourThis ruling appears to fly in the face of the spirit of the law.
In particular - why have the clause stating that the offer takes priority over the mortgage conditions if no discrepancy exists!!!
It absolutely sounds like they wanted to have their cake and eat it.
No one in their right mind would sign up to a 30 day notice BTL mortgage.
West Brom clearly would have absolutely ZERO business if that was the true offer.
Likewise if they offer a tracker product where they can vary the spread on a whim they would have zero business.
That is absolutely no way to do business.
Idiotic.
I expect other lenders will follow now precedent has been set.
Yazar said:
walm said:
Do you think that retail mortgage contracts aren't subject to the rule of law??
Retail or commercial should make no difference.
A consumer is not expected to have the same understanding as a company or a professional in the business.
If a business chose not to have a lawyer review a business deal than any small print/future interpretation ambiguity was a risk they took.
However, two points.
1. I don't think the ruling would have been different if the borrower was retail. Either there is inconsistency or not. And the judge thought not.
2. Mortgages are pretty straightforward products. I doubt any retail customer ever gets a lawyer to check the small print of their mortgage contract - even when millions are at stake. Everyone knows how they work - they are to all intents a STANDARD(ish) product. To suggest a bank was marketing a 25 year product with the right to call it with 30 days notice is absurd. It's a massive BS "you didn't read the small print" get out of jail free card which means West Bromwich are total
s who don't deserve to write one more loan ever.Everyone knows what that mortgage was set up to do and achieve.
Yet here West Brom are spending hundreds of thousands to prove what total untrustworthy gits they really are.
Job done.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff