You don't have to be an entity.I’m a bit confused though. Me and my husband are not an enterprise or entity
Ok, got it.You don't have to be an entity.
Take a farmer for example. He's a person. If he borrows to buy farmland, the loan is for a business purpose. Therefore SME code applies. But if he borrows for home improvements then CPC applies.
The loan you've described is a classic business loan, so UB have obviously classed you as a business customer, for that loan.
What are the chances of the taxman ever knowing about this ? Even if they did it they would have to accept that it was something you didn't know about and would be very harsh to seek penalties and interest. I'm sure the pedants here will have a different view though.If it turns out that I overclaimed interest is say 2013 on my tax return, does that mean I'm liable for penalties and interest to revenue? And if yes, is it not the bank that should have to pay this.
I have read the attached refund letter you received from Ulster Bank, surely if they did something that was not allowed pursuant to “some business lending facilities”, then it is a breach of contract, plain and simple and not an overcharge event as claimed by Ulster Bank.Much to my surprise I've received a letter from Ulster Bank with a refund cheque. Has any other poster had this experience. My 'mortgage' is unusual. It's actually a type of loan to purchase an investment property. I went looking for a mortgage and the bank decided to do it this way as it was much easier they told me than my having a normal investment mortgage. How it works is they loan me the money. Let's say 100K. And I pay a 'margin' plus the prevailing interest rate (called cost of funds). It's cheaper than normal investment mortgages. In the early years they sent me an annual statement, and this showed the 100K, and it reducing with capital and interest as though it were a normal bank account overdraft. With a fluctuation in interest rate every two weeks. I also was able to 'fix' the rate, which I'm now on currently. Then they didn't send me that overdraft type bank statement. Nothing for a year or two. But more recently (due to some new banking rule I believe) they just sent me a one page document with the amount owing at the beginning of the year, the monthly repayment and balance left.
Hi Red Onion,@Bronte
There are only a few companies that I've ever seen write decent reports (I work on the bank side in redress cases).
The going rate is about 1270 per account, but it varies with complexity. In your case, the complexity is checking how they've calculated the new rate. The refund bit is straight forward once you accept that as being right. Unfortunately I'm a bit tied up at the moment, or I'd have a look at it for you.
3% is probably fair. If I understand correctly, this is on top of providing you 'time value of money' at the rate applicable to the account?
You could claim for more if you borrowed at more expensive rates elsewhere.
Re tax, there are no penalties. I understand you put through the refund as a reduction in your interest expense this year.
You're talking about a DSAR - data subject a cess request. Under GDPR you've a right to access your data.
First Source is a fairly large global outsourcing company.
Hi Ides,Can anyone answer my last post, cats appears to have caught their tongues!
I didn't understand the question / connection. There were 18,000 business customers with an overcharge. They were refunded. A small number of cases were for property ( including Bronte's case). I understand there was no mortgage in this case. I'm not sure how the business loan was secured. So I'm not even sure if this specific case falls under remit of tracker review?
You might share your views?
I don't see where it was established that there's a mortgage?“In-Scope Mortgage Accounts”
Red, the thread does say commercial Mortgages.I don't see where it was established that there's a mortgage?
It was a business loan, that was used because it was quicker than underwriting a mortgage?
I'm not too familiar with the exact circumstances, other than answering the questions raised by Bronte. But the majority of these 18,000 business loans surely had nothing to do with property in any case?
Red,Sorry, I missed the reference to office.
I understand the in scope mortgage accounts for tracker examination were only those for residential property.
Ah, you know more about this than I do.Red,
The framework document from the CBI specifically states the following:
“3.2.1. In the course of the Examination the lender is to review all mortgage accounts in respect of both Private Dwelling Houses and Buy to Let properties”
Surely the CBI would have specifically used the term “buy to let houses” in their description of In Scope Mortgage Accounts within their framework document if they were referring to residential property only, but it did not.