Extended Mortgage term and Buildings Insurance Premiums.

Well i've had a very productive day today. I came across a website, i've never seen it on any Google search but i found it on an old forum post elsewhere. It looks like its still updated too. First glance at the URL i thought it looks like one of them nutter/conspiracy sites............ but it wasn't. Its like a Mortgage bible...........

http://www.mortgagesexposed.com/

Best of all it has downloadable xls spreadsheet/calculators , i know they're everywhere , but crucially for me there is a month by month one where you can track the rate changes. Its brilliant if you like Maths, and Maths is fast becoming my favourite hobby!!!

Next i had a brainwave. How do i solve the missing 1989/1990 statements ? Without seeing them its a pure guess as to what i did or did not pay, right ? Well as luck has it my payments where subject to MIRAS............. HMRC hold the records of my MIRAS relief amounts. A subject access request to them will reveal what i paid !! Just in the process of firing that request off now.

[Still Waving]

Hi

A while back you couldn't understand what had happened to your credit balance of £209.35 in Jan '91. You may have figured it out by now, but I've set out '91 with the monthly debit amounts showing in addition to repayments. You will note that there were a few late payments (ie missed months). The first month with no payment was Feb. So, if you deduct the Feb and March debit amounts from the credit balance, and add back in the payment made on 1st March, you get a credit balance of £82.42. See attached.

Edit: I forgot to add headings, but columns 3 and 4 are payment dates and amounts.

AAD- ML calcs 2.pdf

Hi again. As i've gone through everything i've come across and understood something i hadn't noticed before. The phrase "term extension " or "extended term" seems to be something of a misdirection of fact. My paperwork shows that its nothing of the sort. It shows an "arranged payment schedule" began on 1st January 1993 with a start balance of £13,301.72 for a term of 370 months. I've Googled "arranged payment schedule" and its something you would have to agree and also you would only do if you where in difficulty ? This may explain how they have been able to correct their initial error in rates/payment amount ?
And it dawned on me i do not have copy of the mortgage terms and conditions within my bundle so i will request them separatley. Does anyone have any thoughts as to how you can go into an arranged payment schedule and not know ?

I've found the whole thing really stressfull if i'm honest. I've had sleepless nights trying to work it out, i always knew that i just went in and asked and paid what they said. To see how they have lied to me and tricked me i just have no words . I still can't believe anyone would do that to someone. I still glad we thrashed it around as i have no financial background at all and its all helped me to learn and understand it more, and ultimatley has got us this far. I think i was looking for one little "gotcha" mistake until i realised the enormity of it. Be interesting to see what the auditors make of it.

[Still Waving]

Quick afterthought - Given that they have given you so much incorrect information, both in offer documents and also letters over the years, that April letter (what year) may be suspect too.

Still Waving Yeah, thanks for looking at this , i came to the same conclusion. There is also another anomally i tried to work out and thats when i knew i'd need proffesional help..... i got the rates through. I'll post them up at the end, but what i also noticed is that the payment for much of 1993 and 1994 was £79.68 and it stayed the same even after the loan had been re structured to a 370 month term. The original rate at the very start of the mortgage should of been 13.5% .
This will blow your mind:

[Still Waving]

Still Waving


I now need your help more than ever. Think outside the box for a minute, is there anyway it could be exactly the opposite ?
From the 1992 statement..... i know for a fact that £305.41 is indeed a deficit as their letter in April confirms that amount ...


If it is correct that it is indeed a deficit, then this £209.35 figure is a positive that has vanished ?

Yes, looking at it again, you could be correct (the perils of looking at these things late at night).

Taking their carried forward figure at end of '91 of £104.43 as a Credit balance then the early part of '92 looks like this -

Debits Jan to April 409.84 (ignore insurance, they said, it doesn't increase arrears)
~~Less Credit B/F 104.43 -
----------------------------------
~~~~~~~~Arrears 305.41 (No payments appear to have been made until May).

However this raises other questions.
(There is something amiss with the running total of arrears/credit during '91. as we know, but that is a different question.)

Early '91, following your Jan payment of £127.75 (which was on overpayment of 41p), the balance outstanding was £13,196.84. So adding your repayment back into the balance makes the '90 end of year balance £13,324.59, and adjusting for your 41p overpayment makes the end of year credit position £208.94.

Now, is it feasible (in round figures) that at the end of year 2 of the mortgage the balance would have reduced by approx just £50 and had a credit situation of approx £209?

What was the principal element of the monthly repayment? If all (correct) monthly repayments and the insurance had been paid (which a Credit situation would suggest), then wouldn't the principal outstanding have reduced by more than £50? Unless there was a similar case as in '91, where monies were paid on 31/12 (ie too late)?

Unfortunately the key to this lies in the missing statements.

[Still Waving]

My logical mind likes to start at the beginning (which due to the conveniently "lost" years isn't possible), and work my way forwards to try to find what has gone amiss. The scattergun approach of jumping to 2015 and 2009/10 doesn't fit with that.

It's been tricky, and the late introduction of relevant info, such as the fact that there was MIRAS, and the sudden posting of the 24/8/88 offer document that shows they did calculate repayments using 12.75% to get £118.69 (though I can't make out the term of years in the copy you posted), caused calculations and discussions that needn't have taken place at all!

It's good that you've engaged an auditor to look at it, as you can show him all the documentation in order, rather than the few bits you've posted up here.

Good luck!

[Roger]

Well thank you and Still Waving for some remarkable work here! Great contribution to AAD
Checking terms and calculations does require expertise and a professional auditor report is an excellent idea!

Wish you well and a Happy Christmas and New Year

Ok, got my rates through. Everything is out of kilter. I've been over them statements so many times now getting things wrong and getting things right. I've now got it all, or all most. I almost fully understand them statements now too. Problem i have now is that some stuff is either so wrong i can't fathom it or i made a mistake in my understanding. They lied, got the rate and whole set up wrong all that bit is easy. The hard bit is working out the restitution I figure if and when it gets to the ombudsman at best i may get some few grand compo. But i'm looking for a good bit more for my loss. I've engaged a registered auditor to give me a good overview of what, why , where on the account from inception until 1994. My case is there already, this will just help me determine what way i am going with my claim for restitution. £500 day rate for the auditor BTW. But i do need a proffesional opinion rather than me standing there like a loon saying "this is wrong and that is wrong". Auditor will nail key facts and i'll have it in writing to produce as solid evidence. As ever i'll keep you updated, i'm off to enjoy my xmas hols, well i will when i finish work on Friday. Pick this back up in the New Year when i'm back to it, Happy Xmas all

[The Tech Clerk]

interest rate as bad as my early right to buy from council rate 9% rate fixed in late 70s/early 80s. - normal rate 2%

I spoke to them on the phone several times this week. Been onto the Subject Access team as i still don't have the interest rates. Not sure what the hold up is as they applied to everyone not just me so should be easy to retrieve. I also rang the number on my last letter. The letter says "the lower monthly installments did not increse your term.......... it was missed mortgage payments" It also repeated the £118.69 monthly repayment figure. I aksed the lady on the phone to use a calculator and work out the correct figure. She got a figure different to £118.69. Then she suggested there was a tax change around that time, a different rate of income tax and that may of affected it. I told her that it affected nothing, the MIRAS rate was 25% until the budget change at April 1994 when it went to 20%. She also told me, and she was very helpful, that it is just best to let it go through the Ombudsman and she told me how the whole process will work. I know that for each case the Ombudsman deals with it costs them £750. So thats a cheap option for them. I now realise that the lot is a complete gamble for them. They now know that i know something is wrong, but can i prove my case? Best outcome for them is the Ombudsman will time bar it, worst is that the Ombudsman detects an "error" looks at my missing payments and concludes i am part to blame, if so i might get some compensation if i'm lucky?

I've also chased up the Ombudsman to deal with it as an urgent case. I'm not going to give my life story here but after never suffering ill health in my life i ended up in Hospital last year for a month, and i was off work for about a further 3 months. Off the back of that they found i have a blood disorder, so i'm under Clatterbridge Cancer care for regular checks. So i have been through a rough time financially too, so i hope i will qualify as "urgent" for them to look at my case.

And finally..........i'm confident that i can prove not just a mistake, but an actual fraud by way of hiding the mistake and making me pay for it. If my assumption is correct and indeed i do prove my case, i'd struggled with the idea of working out restitution for me. Just how could the matter be put right ? So i know that my mortgage was restarted in 1993, and i've paid it since. Its almost finished. So what i have lost is the payments i made in 1989,1990,1991 and 1992 have all counted for nothing. The fraud occured when they restarted the mortgage without telling me. Them four years payments would come to roughly £5k. Thats what i lost. If i run that through a compound interest calculator at 8% i get about £45k. Then there will be the issue of compensation too. I'll make my descision after the Xmas holidays now but i don't think i'm going to wait too long for the Ombudsman , if they can't see to it quick i'll consider my options. Go to Court and go it alone or ask a Solicitor for a case appraisal and cost. I've been to Court before and done OK so i'm not an expert but i'm confident enough and not really too phased by it. In the meantime i'll just try get more evidence and understanding.

Thanks all for your help so far, i literally wouldn't of got this far without your help and encouragement.

Not sure if I've already answered this question re the '91 statement, as this thread is rather sprawling. In case I haven't, here goes -

In the arrears column a positive figure is a deficit and a - figure is a credit amount. The unchanging 22.64 figure is because the entries corresponding to those are the posting of interest and the Miras allowance. Your payment of 127.07 on 31/12 turned the deficit of 22.64 into a credit of 104.43 which as we said earlier was carried forward to '92.

I haven't yet tried to figure out why the arrears figure stayed the same for a number of months earlier in the year.

Still Waving


I now need your help more than ever. Think outside the box for a minute, is there anyway it could be exactly the opposite ?
From the 1992 statement..... i know for a fact that £305.41 is indeed a deficit as their letter in April confirms that amount ...


If it is correct that it is indeed a deficit, then this £209.35 figure is a positive that has vanished ?

I've looked at that letter from '88, and it looks to me that they have deducted MIRAS at 20%, which is clearly wrong. An individual can make an error. I do think, though, that the 118.69 is correct at 13.5%.

You know what ? You've made the same mistake as me, its there in our face and we where to busy concentrating on MIRAS and how to get the correct payment that we missed the obvious...their computation is wrong from the start.

test.