Extended Mortgage term and Buildings Insurance Premiums.

[Guest]

Thanks Roger. Its strange the way they scanned it , almost like it was intentional ? The branch code 028, i'm pretty certain was the Mortgage Centre and it was in Liverpool at the time. My actual local branch is 454. Any thoughts on the figures in the current arrears column ? The next bit ( the 92 statement ) has just made my head fall off !!! I'll try type it up now...

[Still Waving]

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" .

I was assuming the last column was meant to be current arrears, but I haven't fathomed it out yet. It's made more complicated by the fact that in some months 2 payments were made, and in others no payments.

But I haven't paid too much attention to that last column so far. I've been concentrating on monthly debits vs payments made, to establish shortfall or surplus at end of years.

I have a few questions and comments which I'll post later.

[Roger]

Thanks Roger. Its strange the way they scanned it , almost like it was intentional ? The branch code 028, i'm pretty certain was the Mortgage Centre and it was in Liverpool at the time. My actual local branch is 454. Any thoughts on the figures in the current arrears column ? The next bit ( the 92 statement ) has just made my head fall off !!! I'll try type it up now...

Still Waving Is on to that One!
A big thanks to AAD because we are on a shared learning curve here!

[Still Waving]

OK, so from looking in some detail at '91 and '92, I make an estimated shortfall in '91 of £38.09 (debits including insurance £1424.09 - payments £1386.00). In '92 an estimated shortfall of £143.28 (debits inc insurance £1224.58 - payments £1081.30). There appear to be no payments for the first 4 months of '92, although extra amounts were paid later.

I've said estimated shortfall as there were several rate changes during those two years, and in '91 the repayment amounts changed at seeming arbitrary dates in the month, which is bonkers. At least in '92 they mostly changed on the first of the month. What I don't know is what amounts you were told to pay, and commencing when.

As you probably know, the AAD Golden Rule is EVERYTHING in writing. This is to have proof of everything. The AAD SAR template reiterates with a list (but not limited to) of documentation required, ie statements, notices, correspondence relating to you/your account, in the SAR to ensure that as much as possible is obtained.

In relation to your SAR, you said at Post #57
"Hour and a half i was on the fone until i got to the right person. He seemed very helpful. I explained my account started in 1989 and i would need all records from inception / offer to date as i had a complex complaint/query and i needed to go over everything and work stuff out and check rates/payments etc."

You asked for all records, so that should have included notices of interest rate change and new repayment amounts and from which month they apply, and all correspondence to/from you and, for example, the "insurance client".

In what they have sent you are there notices of interest rate change telling you what your new repayment is and when you should start paying it?
Is there an Insurance Schedule from the "insurance client", telling you the date of payment and the initial amount to pay? And advice of subsequent amounts to pay?

The 1993 statement seems tricky and I have yet to have a really good look at that. Why is it in several pieces? Is that how it was sent to you? It appears they changed the system from April '93 rather than January as you had surmised earlier.

[Guest]

Yes the 1993 statement is exactly how it was sent to me. There is not a single thing relating to Insurance whatsoever.

[Guest]

Ok , i'm not sure what is going on here or why there was no payments. But what we do know is what the payments should be.
January £104.43
February £104.43
March £100.49
April £100.49
Total of £ 409.84 not paid. You'd think i'd remember something like that happening but i have no recollection of it. But i do have this letter in the bundle, there is no other documentation around this at all. And what confuses me more is that they come to a different amount?



I've no idea where they got the £204.92 figure from ? But if i add that to the expected April payment of £100.49 then i get an arrear of £305.41. The arrears column now shows this arrear of £305.41- like their letter says. The difference between my calculation of £409.84 and their calculation of £305.41 is £104.43 . So who paid it, where did it come from ? Look back at the 1991 statement and the arrears column shows £104.43 in the positive, not minus. I can only fathom that the arrears column is showing an overpayment ? If so, what happened to the other positive figures in the 1991 statement, does that make sense ?

[Still Waving]

I've no idea where they got the £204.92 figure from ?

I think I can shed some light on this.

Your due date for payment is 23rd of each month, as stated in their letter of Feb '89. Therefore at the date of their letter 13/4/92, your April instalment was not yet due.

So, first 3 months debits = 309.35. There was a payment of 127.07 on 31/12/91, making a CREDIT balance of 104.43 at 31/12/91 . Deduct 104.43 from 309.35, and you get 204.92 arrears (as per their letter).

A further debit of 100.49 had become due on 23 /4/92, making the arrears at 27/4/92 (as shown on the statement) 305.41.

A bit of explanation is called for here. Normally any short fall (arrears) at 31/12 is capitalised (ie forms part of the balance carried forward to next year and on which the interest is calculated. So there is no arrears carried forward at 01/01. Similarly, if overpayments had been made, they would have reduced the balance outstanding and so interest would be calculated on that lower amount.

I am guessing here, that in this instance you had been advised in December '91 that to keep the account up to date a payment of £127.07 was required. Unfortunately, it looks as though it was paid AFTER the interest calculation for the next year had been posted. Therefore they had, unusually, to bring forward a credit balance to '92. The exact circumstances may not be as I am guessing, but the principle remains the same.

EDIT: Principle remains the same!

[Guest]

Ok i realise now that £204.92 is a March payment of £100.40 and a February payment of £104.43 . So if we look at the credit balance at beginning of 1991 it shows £209.35 . I can't understand that.

Also sorry i forgot to answer the question, no they sent me nothing about interest rates for them early statements, only later ones. I'll have to get back to them and ask, i just realised in my paperwork from them they tell me this about their records:

Understanding Microfiche
Santander stores the transactional information on some older mortgags in the form of microfiche. It lists the account movements and confirms the dates significant events took place for example rate changes.

I guess mine is microfiche ? If so its odd that 89/90 not there ?

[Still Waving]

Ok i realise now that £204.92 is a March payment of £100.40 and a February payment of £104.43 . So if we look at the credit balance at beginning of 1991 it shows £209.35 . I can't understand that.

Also sorry i forgot to answer the question, no they sent me nothing about interest rates for them early statements, only later ones. I'll have to get back to them and ask, i just realised in my paperwork from them they tell me this about their records:


I guess mine is microfiche ? If so its odd that 89/90 not there ?

Without the '90 statement for context, it's not possible to say how the 209.35 figure is arrived at. Frankly that final column makes no sense. You'll note in '91 that the figure remains unchanged for months at a time when varying amounts, different from the debit figures, are being paid.

Regarding the missing 89 & 90 - as Sherlock Holmes would say - it is suggestive.

[Guest]

Regarding the missing 89 & 90 - as Sherlock Holmes would say - it is suggestive.

I think i can go further than that now. The 91/92 statements i have posted i cropped. I didn't crop anything off them they are as they are, but they where small bits on an A4 sheet. You can tell there is lots of stuff omitted and you ( or rather i) am only getting a part scan. You would expect some more info like rates, but no.

Also whilst its right to scrutinise the statements to see what i have done or not done, and granted its not the tidiest of accounts you (or rather i ) can get a grasp that like i said i went into the branch, found out what i had to pay and i paid it. For me at least so far there is nothing jumping out at me where the term would need to be extended by 10 years, not sure if you agree? I'm prepared to be wrong. Amidst this i'm almost forgetting and thinking it is a personal thing they done to me, they done this to thousands of people at the same time. Most of the people affected where not told what would happen if they did not increase payments, that was a bone of contention but its not my contention as, like i say i went in to find out what i had to pay.

When i do the sums of £13,375 @ 12.75% over 25 years i actually get a lower figure than they come to, i get £112.81 (allowing for MIRAS deduction).

Now here is my 1994 statement, scrutinise the figures of course. But i'd ask you to forget the figures for a minute. We now have some new columns. If we compare back to the 1993 statement, i'll repost it underneath for easy viewing, on the 1994 statement the line in red is populated, its not on the 1993 statement. It looks to me like its been removed ? Also i can see that on 30th April 1993 when the account was re jigged and given an extended term it is classed as "an additional fee"................the line in yellow.

[Guest]

Just noticed something after posting, or as i posted. My "Method of Repayment" highlighted in red on the 1994 statement says "1" . What do you take that to mean looking at the codes ? Its the same on all statements in that format until it changed in 2006.

[Still Waving]

"Also whilst its right to scrutinise the statements to see what i have done or not done, and granted its not the tidiest of accounts you"

I hope you didn't take any of my comments as criticism. They were merely statements of fact when looking at the figures, and no offence intended.

Thanks for posting up 1994. I'll look at that in conjunction with '93 (tomorrow). There are certainly a lot of oddities in '93, such as the several payments shown as being in March, which I suspect are really brought forward amounts: The odd small 'repayments': The "Credit Mortgage Sundry" entries: Dates duplicated, with differing 'repayments', etc.

[Still Waving]

When i do the sums of £13,375 @ 12.75% over 25 years i actually get a lower figure than they come to, i get £112.81 (allowing for MIRAS deduction).

I'm not clear why you are bothering with that. Their letters in Feb & March '89 were written after the rate rise to 13.5%, and gave you a repayment of £118.xx, and the other letter confirmed the Feb and March DEBITS as £118.xx.

[Guest]

"Also whilst its right to scrutinise the statements to see what i have done or not done, and granted its not the tidiest of accounts you"

I hope you didn't take any of my comments as criticism. They were merely statements of fact when looking at the figures, and no offence intended.

Thanks for posting up 1994. I'll look at that in conjunction with '93 (tomorrow). There are certainly a lot of oddities in '93, such as the several payments shown as being in March, which I suspect are really brought forward amounts: The odd small 'repayments': The "Credit Mortgage Sundry" entries: Dates duplicated, with differing 'repayments', etc.

Don't you worry about anything like that. I'm very grateful for your replies. I think i aimed that at myself really as i have been trawling through to see what i have done wrong and took my eye off what they have done. I take no offence at anything, and certainley not any facts !! Thanks again for your help.

[Guest]

I'm not clear why you are bothering with that. Their letters in Feb & March '89 were written after the rate rise to 13.5%, and gave you a repayment of £118.xx, and the other letter confirmed the Feb and March DEBITS as £118.xx.

I don't know myself. Its just something that should be easy for them to explain, they don't seem to be able to or want to. It should be an easy sum. Just call it a gut feeling ? I'm going to press them again for an answer. One letter is wrong, the 1997 letter or the March 1989 letter. I'm also starting to lean towards the fact they may have switched me to interest only without my knowledge as i can't get the figures to stack up. I can post later statements if you think that would be helpful ?