Top

Are Mortgage Redemption Charges Unlawful?


Updated on 16 December 2008 | 1 Comment

Bank charges are unlawful, as are mortgage exit administration fees. Now we turn our attention to mortgage early-redemption charges.

That bank charges are unlawful is indisputable in my mind. The same goes for excessive mortgage exit administration fees. However, mortgage early redemption charges are another matter.

Typically, you pay an early redemption charge (ERC) when you switch mortgages within an introductory deal, e.g. within two years if you have a two-year fixed-rate mortgage. Sometimes you have extended early repayment charges, which means you may be charged beyond the deal period.

These charges are based on a percentage of your mortgage, e.g. you might be charged 2% of your outstanding £100,000 mortgage, which is £2,000.

Are these charges unlawful?

There are lots of arguments on both sides. Most claimants have based their arguments on similar lines to bank charges. They say that the redemption charge is a charge for breach of contract, because by switching mortgages you are terminating your contract before the agreed period. Thus, they argue, any charge that is greater than the mortgage company's administrative costs is a penalty, and penalty charges are illegal.

So far I've read about a dozen cases that have been won, all for less than £5,000 and all of them settled prior to a court hearing. £5,000 is a significant figure, because claims under it usually cost you no more than about £150 if you lose. If you lose a claim over £5,000 you will almost certainly pay the other side's legal costs. Mortgage companies usually have large teams of expensive lawyers, so costs could easily be another £5,000 or more.

However, recently several cases have been lost. Where cases have been lost, it seems that the question of whether these charges are penalties doesn't even come up, because the claim is rejected on the grounds that closing your mortgage early is not a breach of contract. It follows, therefore, that it can't be a penalty for breach of contract.

So there is a lot of uncertainty. The only things we know for sure are that these claims are no way near as straightforward as penalty bank charges and that most claimants are out of their depth. With claims over £5,000 in particular, the risks, at this stage, are not worth the rewards.

So I will not yet be writing a guide to claiming these charges. I will need more information and more certainty (one way or the other), which I shall continue to look for.

If you can't wait then you can always do your own research. You could start by asking users on our Reclaim Unfair Mortgage Fees discussion board. I suggest you also visit the excellent Consumer Action Group website to see what you can learn from their users too.

> Compare mortgages though The Fool.
> Fools Go For Fixed-Rate Mortgages

Most Recent


Comments



  • 18 July 2011

    In jan 2010 I was granted an £185,000 mortgage on a two year fix with abbey now santander Then in april 2011 we decided to move to another property. Naturally we wished to 'port' the mortgage the original loan was on a property with a paltry loan to value of just 24% and we easily made the payments. The new house was valued higher which brought the ltv down to 23% also my personal circumstances hadn't changed so you will see that just 2 days prior to exchanging contracts on our dream home we were astonished to learn that santander reduced the mortgage offer to £117500 a shortfall of £67500! with no other explanation than the usual "all loans are subject to the banks lending criteria at the time". But what really upset us was that we were to be charged £1800 in early redemption penalties! How can this be legal? we had not voluntarilly redeemed anything. Fortunately I had the capital to make up the shortfall and we moved but how many others are not and therefore can't move? no wonder the housing market is in the doldrums, but the biggest nonsense of all is that these people would still have the original loan amount! Surely this is discrimination to those wishing to move? Do the banks automatically review there loan books every time they change the lending criteria ? of course not which again is discrimination to those wishing to move isn't it? I am also informed that once your fix expires you are free to switch to a new product without any income checks which seems a nonsense in light of the above.I am sure this is a relatively new fee generating phenomena as i recall a similar situation in 1998 when i ported a nationwide loan without redress (NO NEW INCOME CHECKS). My question is this: even though the original offer states that loans can be ported subject etc is it fair that you are informed of these changes to lending criteria in such circumstances so near exchange as you have no time to make other arrangements also we did not voluntarilly redeem these funds the bank forced us to, however the real nonsense is the fact that had we not moved we would still have the higher amount!its daft and so unfair

    REPORT This comment has been reported.
    0

Do you want to comment on this article? You need to be signed in for this feature

Most Popular

Copyright © lovemoney.com All rights reserved.

 

loveMONEY.com Financial Services Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) with Firm Reference Number (FRN): 479153.

loveMONEY.com is a company registered in England & Wales (Company Number: 7406028) with its registered address at First Floor Ridgeland House, 15 Carfax, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1DY, United Kingdom. loveMONEY.com Limited operates under the trading name of loveMONEY.com Financial Services Limited. We operate as a credit broker for consumer credit and do not lend directly. Our company maintains relationships with various affiliates and lenders, which we may promote within our editorial content in emails and on featured partner pages through affiliate links. Please note, that we may receive commission payments from some of the product and service providers featured on our website. In line with Consumer Duty regulations, we assess our partners to ensure they offer fair value, are transparent, and cater to the needs of all customers, including vulnerable groups. We continuously review our practices to ensure compliance with these standards. While we make every effort to ensure the accuracy and currency of our editorial content, users should independently verify information with their chosen product or service provider. This can be done by reviewing the product landing page information and the terms and conditions associated with the product. If you are uncertain whether a product is suitable, we strongly recommend seeking advice from a regulated independent financial advisor before applying for the products.