Interesting decision made by judge in repossession case. - Greedy RBS/Halifax

[ODC]

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...-30519848.html

[Amethyst]

Re: Interesting decision made by judge in repossession case. - Greedy RBS/Halifax

Bank of Scotland has been unfairly double-billing customers who fell behind on their mortgages, a High Court judge has ruled.

Master Ellison said the bank's behaviour had been unconscionable.

His finding in a Belfast courtroom could have implications for thousands of mortgage holders across the UK, the charity which took the case said.
Master Ellison said: "The plaintiffs' reliance on extinguished arrears may fairly be described as double-billing. Unilateral consolidation with double billing creates very real problems for borrowers, their advisers and the court.
"To the extent at least of the double billing, it is unconscionable."
The Housing Rights Service which supports distressed borrowers challenged how the lender was dealing with mortgage arrears, in conjunction with three customers facing repossession.
The bank had added their arrears to outstanding mortgage balances without the customers' consent.
This produced increased mortgage payments, meaning customers were effectively paying off their arrears.
The bank then proceeded with legal action to repossess the properties and asked the customers to make additional payments towards the arrears to avoid losing their homes.

[Amethyst]

Re: Interesting decision made by judge in repossession case. - Greedy RBS/Halifax

Banks Response
''
"We are currently considering the Northern Ireland High Court judgment made on 4th August and our position following that judgment.
"Once we have fully reviewed the findings, we will respond accordingly."

[Amethyst]

Re: Interesting decision made by judge in repossession case. - Greedy RBS/Halifax

Another story here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-28842534


and

http://www.housingrights.org.uk/news...d-held-account

In summary

The Court has found that Bank of Scotland were adopting a practice of double billing and non-consensual capitalisation which was in conflict with the requirements of the Financial Conduct Authority. This practice was unfair as it evidently prevented borrowers from making payment proposals to the court to repay their arrears.
Clarity and transparency are essential during possession proceedings, otherwise very real problems can be created for borrowers, their advisers and the court. However the court has stated that the handling of accounts by Bank of Scotland in these instances, created ‘a mist of incomprehension, confusion and self-contradiction.’
The law provides protection to borrowers in that it affords the court discretion to stop possession action when a borrower can put forward a payment arrangement. However, the actions of Bank of Scotland distorted this discretion. It is our view that this practice unfettered would undoubtedly have resulted in many borrowers unnecessarily losing their home.
The case may be subject to appeal.
- See more at: http://www.housingrights.org.uk/news....Iabkh80N.dpuf