Extended Mortgage term and Buildings Insurance Premiums.

[Still Waving]

Well frankly if they are NOT in the SAR how can produce them? It means they don't hold original information!
I wonder does the name IRON MOUNTAIN appear in the SAR?
Big thanks to Still Waving for sterling help here!

We are talking about basically only statements for a couple of years (and maybe some more correspondence). But they have provided some letters from 1989, so I don't think Iron Mountain data losses come into it.

[Still Waving]

Hi again

There are various things jumping out at me from various posts which are scattered throughout the thread, so it's not easy to bring them all together.
Anyway it may help to bring some of them closer together so -

Their letter from 1997, shown in post #33 says
"..... your mortgage did not actually complete until January 1989. At this time you were quoted an instalment of £118.69 based on an interest rate of 12.75%. Later in the month the interest rate increased to 13.5%, however you continued to pay £118.69, and as a result the term extended."

We now know that this statement is not true, as you have the February '89 letter quoting an instalment of £118.69 AFTER the rate had increased. So the 1997 letter was either a deliberate misinformation, or the author had misunderstood the actual position.

Further their letter of March '89 does not suggest that you are underpaying, in fact it confirms that the February and March debits were £118.69. That blows their contention right out of the water.


As an aside, you said in post #44

Ok, i still havn't recieved response letter, and TBH i couldn't be bothered to wait any longer I know my complaint has been declined as they told me on the phone. I've asked them one simple question as an existing mortgage holder : My mortage commenced on 23rd Jan 1989, it was for £13,301.xx , i was quoted and paid £118.xx . "What calculation did they use to arrive at that figure, when i know that i can work out my shortfall and set my mind at rest."

We now know that your question contains an incorrect original loan amount. I take it you haven't had a direct response to that question?

You said in post #47 "Now the Mortgage commenced Jan 1989 and it was somehow re purposed and given an extended term on the 1st Jan 1993." Their 2015 statement shows original loan as £13301.72 which was the balance at 31/12/92. So it looks like their repurposing includes sweeping past figures under the carpet.

[Guest]

Still Waving thats my assesment up to now. I'll have to try narrow all this down for the FOS. Thanks a lot, i'll give myself a rest now as its sending me round the twist. Be back when i got some more info or unearth anything else. I spotted some anomalys in the early statements but i'll go over them in a few days. Never bashed a calculator so much!!


*Edit to add no answer to that question. I raised it as a query as well after my complaint refusal and they said 7 to 10 days they'll get back to me.......... still no answer. I asked them that on 22nd Nov.

[The Tech Clerk]

Ah! the Iron Mountain incident!

[Guest]

Hi again, got my reply this morning. I've found it confusing and contradictory:
Todays letter:




Some of that we had already worked out. Slight change of tack now though. You've seen the 1997 and 2002 letters. Here is the 1999 letter, that just confuses stuff more:




I get the feeling that they don't really know but are just stabbing about at anything ?

[Roger]

I am grateful for marylikes for bringing this whole matter up.

@still-waving excellent help and work

You just get the feeling that somewhere the paperwork has been irretrievably LOST!

What is Fact and can be verified!
What is Opinion and surmise frankly and cannot be verified!

So 1993 the new computer system! Pre 1993 YOU the CONSUMER are to suffer from whatever they did or didn't do wrong because IT MUST HAVE BEEN YOUR FAULT!

".. I get the feeling that they don't really know but are just stabbing about at anything ? .."

[Guest]

If they are saying (which they are) that it was extended prior to 1993 then the 1993 Insurance payment would have no bearing on anything? Also they now appear to be saying the lower monthly payments did not cause the increase, which appears to be a complete U-turn ? Its not like i'm trying to forensically find a missing £100 or so, the 10 year term extension (i think) is a massive thing and the reason for it should stick out like a sore thumb, but no ?

[Roger]

If they are saying (which they are) that it was extended prior to 1993 then the 1993 Insurance payment would have no bearing on anything? Also they now appear to be saying the lower monthly payments did not cause the increase, which appears to be a complete U-turn ? Its not like i'm trying to forensically find a missing £100 or so, the 10 year term extension (i think) is a massive thing and the reason for it should stick out like a sore thumb, but no ?

BUT MIRAS credited at the end of the year to bring payments up to PAR.

Then coming back are alleged to unpaid mortgage payments? AND Unpaid Buildings Insurance Premiums!

Hang on WHAT about this COMPUTERISED System change in 1993?
Seems to me that rather like POST OFFICE passing their Systems Failings onto the CONSUMER.
No mention of %rate changes I notice!

So where is the Advice of Insurance Premiums before the Computerised System AND after the System that from 1993 to what 1997???
Where are the statements prior to 1993 and between 1993 and 1997.
Because the Inland Revenue will surely require these for audit purposes because of MIRAS!
They have extended the term of the mortgage by a chunk AND you have been paying interest ON THIS CHUNK ADDED SINCE it compounds their profits.
Why did they not invoice you outright for these alleged unpaid Insurance Premiums> WHERE are the Letters asking for these payments!

Livid!!

[Still Waving]

I'll have a deeper look at this later to see if I can make further headway, but sadly you have shot yourself in the foot to some extent by going at them with totally incorrect figures. It really would have been better to wait for the SAR bundle. If they are trying to put you off the scent, they will have been encouraged by this.

[Guest]

Ok, on a roll now. Done nothing but read , digest and calculate. Again everything i need is posted here, it just a case of understanding or dechiphering it. @StillWaving i do very much appreciate your input. I'm like a scattergun approach and i'm all over the place, you seem to narrow the issues down in a sentence. I'm now going to go over the statements, they do actually reveal a lot once you understand them.

[Guest]

I'll have a deeper look at this later to see if I can make further headway, but sadly you have shot yourself in the foot to some extent by going at them with totally incorrect figures. It really would have been better to wait for the SAR bundle. If they are trying to put you off the scent, they will have been encouraged by this.

If i have a misunderstanding then its only because they have not let me know the correct figures etc... If they have been encouraged by this and it shows, then that will reflect on how they should/should have treat me as a customer ? You know and i know where i got my figures, they will too. Figures is their job.

[Guest]

I'm not going to worry about what i havn't got. I'm going to look at what i have got. 1991 statement:

Statements from 1991 to 1993 :

So if we look at that statement, you can see a column that is the mortgage balance and to the left you can see it is populated with an expected payment (matches up with rate changes at top of page), debit or credit. On the right hand side you can see actual payments. There is also another column where you will see "454" repeated a lot. I've deduced that "454" is my local branch where i made my payments.There is 13 payments for the year, without seeing the previous statements which i dont have its hard to understand why. Its either a catchup payment from previous year, or advance payment for next year , looking at the disparity in figures with what i have its hard to come to an assumption. What is rather easy to fathom out though is the general payments. Given the payment amounts i.e £82.42, £82.03 etc..... i think its reasonable to assume i went and asked to pay what i was due and i paid ? The alternative is that i just made up exact figures to pay ? The nett result of that year is that the start balance was ....£13,196.84 and end of year was £13,274.80. Thats a deficeipt of £77.96 on the year , £51.93 of that defecipt being an insurance premium. But when you look at it as a whole its clear that wrong payments where being made. The extra payment at the beginning and end of the year seem to have cushioned the blow either way. My general feeling ( i know it counts for nothing) is that i've been charged a wrong rate. Lets move on................

[Still Waving]

Hi

Sorry, but I have to disagree with your interpretation. The column in front of the Balance o/s column is actual payments made. You can see this more clearly in the 1992 statement where the figures in that column are nowhere near the revised payment amounts as shown at top left. In fact they are all over the place.

You can simply check this by looking at any entry in that column and comparing to the before and after figures for balance o/s.

I haven't got to grips with what the final column represents yet, as there are no headings showing on these pages you have uploaded.

Still looking at it (tomorrow).

[Guest]

Still Waving you are correct. I've realised, the bottom bit should really be placed at the top then it makes sense. The last column is "current arrears" . But this has blew my mind, they appear to show a positive rather than a negative ? Also i can't understand what i am seeing, you might understand it. Near the bottom of the arrears column you will see a figure 81.79, then underneath you will see 22.64- (twice) . 81.79 + 22.64 = 104.43 . This figure is the same figure as the payment on 4th December and also its the same figure at the end of the arrears column. Gets more crazy... 81.79+22.64+22.64= 127.07 the same as the 31st December payment. Can you figure it out ?

[Roger]

Taking your image and with headings at the top does help with reconcilation. There are Internal Data Codes the Branch Code is 028.
It does compute BUT its missing for instance brought forward figures the INSURANCE 51.93- is taken directly! I would have thought your repayments would have been weighted each month to include the Annual INSURANCE. I am not sure you were ever properly informed as to what was or wasn't included in your repayment figures! Note these over time were calculated and reduced and or increased.

You need to know exactly how these Repayment figures were calculated!!! ie What formulae for repayment and or interest and or Insurance etc.. was included in their requested repayment figures