Hilary Messer, a partner at South East firm RWP Solicitors, is drawing up plans to sue the two major banks on behalf of the 8,500 people who took out zero interest housing loans in the 1990s.
HBOS and Barclays launched mortgage products called shared appreciation mortgages, which saw the banks take up to 75 per cent of the appreciation in value of a property in return for providing a zero or fixed-interest loan.
Some homes have appreciated £300,000 in the 10 years since the loans were made, meaning the homeowners have had to pay more than £200,000 on loans as low as £25,000.
Messer says that the terms were too harsh and changes to the law could mean that the homeowners are in a position to renegotiate the terms in court.
She said: "We've taken advice from eminent leading counsel that homeowners should take action and take action quickly. We want to take on the banks and we have 100 people committed to going forward already."
Messer added that if all 8,500 homeowners came forward, cutting an average of £100,000 off each of their repayments, the banks could lose hundreds of millions of pounds in expected revenue. Some properties have seen more than £1m added to their value.
The firm has set up a website, www.samgroupaction, to encourage people to sign up to the litigation. Messer is waiting for more homeowners to come forward and has not yet instructed counsel or informed the banks.
SAM commission
From: Anonymous
I'd be very interested to know if financial advisors were incentivised to push this product above any other product on the market at the time. As my mother was a victim of a shared appreciation mortgage, and paid a financial advisor for the privilege, we wrote and asked the bank. Although they acknowledged that commission was paid to the financial advisor, they apparently didn't have any details regarding the precise payment. Are there any guilty financial advisors out there who could shed any light on this?
average house prices
From: Anonymous
For those who think that banks are simply misunderstood innocent providers of a service should take a look at the average house price graph: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/graphs-average-house-price.php
you'll notice that at the time that these mortgages were sold, 1997/1998, average house prices in the uk were well below trend. It is a common defence that the banks could have lost if house prices had fallen. In fact the odds were stacked in the banks favour that house prices would rise again to at least meet the trend line once again. Was this information known by the banks - of course. Was this information given to the elderly victims of SAMS? I think not.
I'LL TAKE THE GRAND NATIONAL BET!
From: SIMON REEVES
I DON'T BELIEVE THE BARCLAYS SHARED APPRECIATION MORTGAGE SCHEME WAS ADVERTISED AS A GAMBLE.
I'M SURE THE TEAM OF EXPERTS THE BANK WOULD HAVE EMPLOYED AT THE TIME COULD PREDICT HOW THIS WAS GOING TO TURN OUT, FAR MORE ACCURATELY THAN THE UNFORTUNATE PEOPLE WHO FELT THE NEED TO TAKE ON THE SCHEME. AFTER ALL, THE SCHEME WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN OFFERED HAD THERE BEEN A DOUBT THAT THE BANKS WOULD NOT BENEFIT.
THE WRITER 'ANONYMOUS' LIKENS THE SITUATION TO LOSING IN THE 'GRAND NATIONAL'. WITH THE GRAND NATIONAL, YOU WOULD, AT LEAST, STAND A CHANCE OF WINNING.
COULD IT BE THAT MESSRS. RESPONSIBLE, ANONYMOUS, & CO. WITH THEIR 'HELPFUL' COMMENTS WORK FOR BANKS?
Further information for SAM holders
From: Anonymous
SAM holders seeking further information on the Group Action should visit www.samgroupaction.com.
NOT scroungers!
From: P Vaughan
Careful reading of 'Your Questions Answered' on the SAFE website re Shared Appreciation mortgages makes clear that the action against HBOS and Barclays follows fresh changes in consumer protection law. The changes are retrospective, so the action by affected pensioners is perfectly legitimate. The banking industry pulled a fast one on some of the more vulnerable members of society, yet again. I for one - a non-beneficiary - wish the SAM victims success!
Barclays, HBOS face £850m law suit
From: Anonymous
I can only agree with the postings:
‘More scroungers’ from Mr Responsible who objects to: “people who sign up to a deal that seems to be in their favour at the time should expect to wriggle out of it if the gamble goes wrong.”
Similarly the posting, ‘So Wrong’ from: Anonymous, who comments:-
“The owners were consenting adults. They made a bargain which with hindsight proved commercially to be poor.”
So let us come down equally hard on the bankers/industry who have caused a financial Armageddon and expect respective governments/taxpayers to bail them out with impunity and bonuses in tact.
Hoof Hearted.
Barclays, HBOS face £850m law suit
From: Robert Owen, Director SAFE
Confusion regarding the Shared Appreciation Mortgages (SAMs), and the relationship between SAFE and Hillary Messer of RWP Solicitors.
SAFE, (Struggle Against Financial Exploitation Ltd), has worked closely with Hillary Messer/RWP Solicitors for several years on a number of matters. Hilary Messer attended and advised at the SAMs meeting SAFE arranged in Westminster, (SAFE is the Secretariat to the All Party Parliamentary Group Against Financial Exploitation, and also negotiated the SAMs Hardship Scheme with Barclays Bank Plc).
More recently in harmony with SAMAG a legal opinion was commissioned, by SAFE, via RWP, to investigate the opportunity of potential legal redress for the invidious situation the SAM holders find themselves in.
Many of you will know from our news letter and website www.safe-online.org the Opinion was very positive and is the catalyst for the potential ‘CLASS ACTION’ against HBOS & Barclays using a leading QC with Hilary Messer/RWP as the instructing Solicitors.
In order to give as many SAM holders as possible an opportunity to be represented in the Action all avenues are being promoted to inform the several thousand SAM holders who may want to be represented.
SAFE is arranging regional meetings around the country and another in the Palace of Westminster shortly, where we will be happy to meet with interested parties.
Robert Owen ~ Director SAFE
Barclays, HBOS face £850m law suit
From: Jan Cooper
I understood SAFE, (Struggle Against Financial Exploitation), the All Party Pariamentary Group Secretariat is, and has been for some years representing holder of SAMs, indeed I some time ago I attended a meeting in Westminster which they set up. SAFE web site shows a link/connection to this Class Action but there is not one related to the story. Before I subscribe to the Class action can somebody clear what the situation is ?
More scroungers
From: Mr Responsible
Yet another group of scroungers who want to have their cake and eat it.
Why is it that people who sign up to a deal that seems to be in their favour at the time should expect to wriggle out of it if the gamble goes wrong. Should I be claiming compensation because my horse didn't win the Grand National?
I sincerely hope they get nowhere.
So Wrong
From: Anonymous
This article epitomises much of what is wrong with lawyers and society. The owners were consenting adults. They made a bargain which with hindsight proved commercially to be poor. So they want the courts to release them. The same people of course would have congratulated themselves on being so clever had house prices risen by only a few percentage points per year (and the Banks would have honoured the resulting bad bargain).