Solicitor to take on lender

My previous lender charged me a fee which I consider outrageous. I'm sure it's allowable in the terms of the contract I signed, but I wish to challenge it on the same basis as many other fees (eg bounced cheques) are being challenged, specifically, it is a common law principle that a fee is only legitimate to the extent that it relates to the expense incurred by the lender.

I tried writing them a letter myself, asking them to explain how they calculated the expense that they incurred, and got back a letter simply stating that it was in accordance with the contract, which I knew :rolleyes:, and saying nothing about their costs.

Now I'd like to get a solicitor to give it a go for me, and see if they can get a better outcome. Does anybody know a solicitor who'd be appropriate, please?
 
037a2d2be04c605d5c856742e8355430.jpg
 
My previous lender charged me a fee which I consider outrageous....it was in accordance with the contract, which I knew :rolleyes:

....Perp....this is the old conundrum of "he who has the gold sets the rules".

1. You wanted their money.
2. They wrote the contract.
3. You read, understood and agreed fully with everything that was in the contract.
4. You executed the contract.
5. They gave you their money.
6. They charge you a fee as per the contract.
7. You now want to disagree with what you agreed to previously.


From where I sit, the only honourable course of action is to either ;

(a) Give their money back
(b) Pay the fee as agreed


Your proper chance for challenging the 'outrageousness' of the fee was at step 3, not after the event you desired at step 5 or when you change your mind at step 7.


The only reason I say this, is that I have had to jump thru many and painful hurdles solely for the reason that someone along the food chain challenged their contract wording after the fact, instead of before....then the courts found in the borrower's favour...and hence the solicitors from the Banks react from the decision by whollus bollus making it nigh on impossible for all subsequent borrowers to have a reasonably worded contract. Every clause and every sub-clause in the lengthy mortgage contract is there to cover their butts because someone decided to challenge it. There's a few.


The bank's lawyers insistence of now having a solicitor witness your signature on the mortgage contract so the borrower can't later turn around and say they didn't know what they were signing and nothing was explained to them - which a magistrate fell for - is just a royal pain, because (a) it assumes only lawyers read and understand contracts, and (b) the lawyers know their *** is in the sling and so either refuse to witness the document (ain't that fun with 1 day to go before you lose the sales contract on a magnificent property that you've been researching fighting to finance for the past 5 months) on the recommendation of their insurance / PI lawyers and / or they charge you $ 1,000.00 per hour or part thereof for the privilege of standing there for 10 minutes with the assumption that you are a numpty.


It's just one big lawyer circle jerk, each with the sole objective of dodging as much liability as possible. It's like watching 3 eels sliming around in a bucket, each trying to stay on the bottom and not poke their head up.


For the sake of everyone else's sanity, please don't pursue step 7.
 
Hi

I my experience, you will want to have deep pockets and strong resilience.

I know you arent asking should or should I not.................

Before going down this track its valuable to see what the lenders costs may have actually been.............cost of 1 to 2 % are not out of the norm for some of the smaller fringe lenders.

What sum of money are we talking about here ?


ta

rolf
 
Soz Perp but my lawyer opinion is that it's a dog with fleas. Even on a win you will pay more in lawyer's fees then the fee involved. There was a class action going on about this last year which will be your best bet-Slater Gordon or Quinn and Scattini I think.

You are looking to claim the fee was a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. If that is upheld it doesn't matter what the contract says!:eek:
 
Not going to fight this to the last breath or anything, but it's multiple $10s of K involved and for that, I am willing to pay for drafting of a letter with reference to pertinent precedents.

Dazz, I'm all for responsibility, but one always signs a contract in the knowledge that the common law is in the background, and unless overridden by statute, contract conditions are only enforceable to the extent that they're consistent with the common law.

Now, anybody got a contact for me, please? :)
 
You are looking to claim the fee was a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. If that is upheld it doesn't matter what the contract says!:eek:
Precisely. :) Maybe I should try writing that letter again myself, having found several precedents, and cite them...
 
Well I have done it without using any lawyers..

It started with emails with no response sent to the loan officer, then they weren't giving any response so, kept calling and calling and kept esculating it to a "higher source" (they do think they are gods).

6 weeks later 4500 back into our loan account..

It can be done, however we had emails to back up our issue and to define exactly what law they had contravened. Persistance paid off in this case..it was not a big 4 bank though.
 
My previous lender charged me a fee which I consider outrageous. I'm sure it's allowable in the terms of the contract I signed, but I wish to challenge it on the same basis as many other fees (eg bounced cheques) are being challenged, specifically, it is a common law principle that a fee is only legitimate to the extent that it relates to the expense incurred by the lender.

I don't think you can or even possibly should win, if you do challenge this.
As you stated it is in the contract. The fact it may not cost the banks this much, is beside the point.

In our residential contracts we have added a clause that if a tenant has a NSF cheque, we charge $50.
The Director told us that was excessive, and to prove the bank actually charged us that. We informed her we didn't need to, it was in our contract.

The only reason we don't have to pay NSF fees to our bank when a tenant's cheque goes NSF, is because we have enough of a buffer to cover it.That is why we feel we are entitled to it.
The Director allows the charge, but contests it every time.
 
Back
Top