Extended Mortgage term and Buildings Insurance Premiums.

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

[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.

[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]

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.

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...

[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

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 ?

[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).

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................

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.

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.

[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.

[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!!

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]

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 ? .."