View more on these topics

Skipton and Manchester refute Property 118 rate hike challenge


Skipton and Manchester Building Society are defending raising interest rates on some of their mortgages amid claims the lenders’ behaviour could be challenged in court.

Earlier this week the Court of Appeal ruled that West Bromwich Building Society should not have raised tracker interest rates without a rise in Bank of England base rate.

Landlord group Property 118 brought the case, and is now raising money and eyeing similar cases against Skipton, Manchester and Bank of Ireland.

Skipton hiked its SVR on residential mortgages from 3.5 per cent to 4.95 per cent in 2010.

In 2012 Manchester raised tracker rates for some borrowers by up to 1.5 per cent.

Bank of Ireland raised rates on 13,500 base rate tracker mortgage customers in February 2013.

Property 118 initially aims to raise £60,000, and had already received donations totalling £14,400 by the end of last week, according to its crowdfunding website.

The website says: “When we have raised enough money we plan to take further action against the Bank of Ireland, Skipton Building Society and Manchester Building Society in respect of changes they made to their mortgage terms which we believe are unlawful.”

But Skipton defended its rate hike as being lawful and unavoidable. It says the findings of the West Brom case are not transferable.

Mortgage Strategy understands the board of Manchester share Skipton’s view. Bank of Ireland would not comment.

A Skipton statement says: “We note that the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in the Alexander v West Bromwich Mortgage Company Ltd case was very fact specific to the offer letter and terms and conditions of business used by that society at the relevant time and is not of any wider application.

“Skipton remains firmly of the opinion that under the terms and conditions of its mortgage offer it lawfully had the right to remove the standard variable rate (SVR) ceiling that applied until 1 March 2010 to the majority of its borrowers with SVR-linked accounts.

“The decision, taken over six years ago, to exercise the society’s right to remove the SVR ceiling was permissible because of the exceptional circumstances provision in its mortgage offer.”

Skipton says the historic low base rate qualifies as an ‘exceptional circumstance’ and allows the rate hike.




West Brom to repay over £27m after legal defeat

West Bromwich Building Society will repay £27.5m to its borrowers after losing a legal battle over buy-to-let tracker rates. A West Bromwich statement says the payment is likely to mean the lender posts a loss for the year to 2017, but that the firm’s underlying profitability is good. A Court of Appeal judgment today found […]


Landlords win legal battle over West Brom rate rise

West Bromwich Building Society has lost an Appeal Court battle over whether it was right to raise interest rates on tracker mortgages without a rise in Bank of England base rate. The case sets a precedent over how the wider mortgage market can treat interest rates. Handing down the judgment today, Lord Justice Hamblen ruled […]


Landlords take on West Brom over tracker rate future

The future of tracker mortgages hangs in the balance pending the outcome of the long-running court case involving landlords challenging rate hikes by West Bromwich Building Society. Whichever side wins, there will be a legal precedent set which will affect whether lenders can raise their interest rates without a rise in Bank of England base […]


What employers should expect over the next five years

A major feature of our articles is looking into the Jelf Employee Benefits crystal ball to predict changes and trends that may influence the short and medium term shape of UK employee benefits.  By flagging such changes early we aim to provide our followers with the tools to make sensible and informed decisions on their benefits offerings.


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up
  • Post a comment
  • Tim 10th June 2016 at 4:03 pm

    Interesting that Skipton chose to rely on an ‘exceptional circumstance’ clause to raise SVR. As exceptional as a historic low base rate might be what justification does the low base rate actually give for increasing SVR ? Surely this is the question that needs to be answered- morally as well as legally.
    If the answer is that the base rate ceased to represent the cost of borrowing to the lender in obtaining funds to lend as mortgages, i.e. the margin of 3% was being eroded because the cost of borrowing was higher than the base rate then the lender has every right to increase SVR.
    Presumably though this increase should only apply to new borrowers as for existing borrowers no such erosion of the margin would be evident. Furthermore, if the adequacy of the margin was restored then the SVR should also be expected to fall.