Lloyds Bank launches lowest mortgage rate on the market but there's a catch
Lloyds Bank is delivering a significant boost to mortgage customers. The high street lender has unveiled a two-year fixed rate at 3.69 per cent, marking the most competitive deal currently available, though the offer comes with certain conditions.
Whilst Lloyds has introduced this offer, it has waned that eligibility is restricted to Club Lloyds account holders exclusively. The package includes a £999 arrangement fee and requires a 40 per cent deposit, available solely to existing or prospective Club Lloyds members.
Commenting on the mortgage rate battle, Aaron Strutt from Trinity Financial said: "It shows how keen banks and building societies are to attract borrowers. If you can get a sub-four per cent rate I still think you are doing pretty well."
He added: "I would not bet against rates being closer to 3.5 per cent over the coming months, but as we have seen so many times before almost anything can happen."
Nick Mendes from John Charcol said: "The latest inflation figures were a little wobble, but given the employment figures the economy needs support. An August base rate cut is still priced in overwhelmingly."
Lewis Shaw from Shaw Financial Services advised: "If my mortgage deal were due to expire within the next three months, I would take action this week."
According to Lloyds' website: "You must have a Club Lloyds current account open before you take out your mortgage. This includes our Silver and Platinum Club accounts.
"There is a £5 monthly fee to maintain the Club Lloyds current account, unless you pay in £2,000 or more each month. Offer can be changed or withdrawn at any time. Product conditions may apply."
The offer is available to Club Lloyds current account holders who are either first-time buyers or looking to re-mortgage, reports Birmingham Live.
It's also open to those moving house, switching to a new deal, or investing in buy-to-let properties. The initial move is to utilise a mortgage calculator to check out the most recent products and rates on offer.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
ALEX BRUMMER: Banks face a fintech coup
The long and winding road back for NatWest from oblivion to robust domestic lender is complete. Paul Thwaite, the bank's chief executive post state shareholding, can enjoy the new freedoms. He has made no secret of his ambition to build on NatWest's already powerful presence through acquisition. As a standalone franchise, NatWest can now say what it thinks again. We know what happened to Thwaite's predecessor Alison Rose when judged to have spoken out of turn about the banking relationship between NatWest's posh offshoot Coutts and Reform leader Nigel Farage. NatWest's chief and his opposite number at Lloyds Charlie Nunn speak as one. With bank profits soaring and some Government members and backbenchers eyeing up the finance and wealth as tax targets, they are concerned. One can see why Labour might regard NatWest's first half operating profits of £3.6billion, up from £3billion in the same period last year, as easy meat. If the bank can afford to buy back £1.5billion of its shares this year, recompense for taxpayers might seem in order. Indeed, the bank has increased its income guidance for the full year to £16.5billion from £16billion. Partly that reflects additional income from the Sainsbury's bank deal, as well as lower than expected bad loans. Good times do not last forever and a profitable bank, with healthy capital, ought to be good for UK growth. NatWest, Lloyds and the other banks have no room for complacency. A note from NatWest-RBS neighbours in Edinburgh, Scottish Mortgage, run by Baillie Gifford, extols fintech. It praises pioneers Stripe, Wise, NuBank, SEA, Revolut and others for building 'scale financial systems' and broadening access. Unless the incumbents can catch the digital train, High Street lenders could – like IBM – become sunset companies, as Microsoft, Nvidia et al sprint off with the prizes. Powell play After ugly scenes in the Oval Office in February, when Donald Trump berated Ukraine's President Zelensky, it might have been hoped self-restraint had been learned. Trump was at it again on Thursday. This time, the victim was Federal Reserve chairman Jay Powell. Trump, as a real estate magnate, has an expertise in renovation, yet quite why he felt it necessary to don a hard hat and tour the repairs to the 90-year-old Fed headquarters is puzzling. As the two men toured, with Trump towering over the diminutive Powell, it was an obvious ambush. Trump magicked a piece of paper from his pocket and questioned alleged $3billion of costs and an overrun. The clash had little to do with concrete and plumbing, and everything to do with central bank independence. Trump is engaged in a crude campaign to bully Powell into cutting the key Fed funds rate from 4.25 per cent to 4.5 per cent to support output. The greater the pressure, the more likely it has been that Powell would hold the line. He has nothing to lose by being obdurate. His most notable legacy could be his bravery in standing up for the Fed. Fashion refit The controlling Lewis family is taking flack for playing hardball with River Island landlords and reshaping its retail portfolio. The objective is to keep the brand on the High Street in long-term ownership rather than condemn it to administration or rapacious private equity ownership. That rarely ends well.
Telegraph
6 hours ago
- Telegraph
Reeves risks disaster if she meddles in the motor finance scandal
She has driven out the non-doms. She has hammered the farmers. And pubs and restaurants are being throttled with higher employment taxes and rates. Still, it is good to know that the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has finally found one group of businesses she would actually like to help: the car finance giants. The Treasury is reported to be looking at overruling the Supreme Court on a potential £44bn of compensation for mis-selling finance schemes. Seriously? In reality, that would fatally undermine consumer protection. And it is hard to think of a less deserving case for help than the auto finance industry. The car finance scandal has been rumbling on for several years now. It is a complex saga, stretching back many years. The nub of it, however, is this. Lenders were paying commissions to middlemen and dealers based on the interest rate that could be imposed on customers, and those commissions were not always disclosed. Back in 2021, the Financial Conduct Authority quite rightly banned that practice, but there are now claims for compensation for past deals. Last year, the Court of Appeal supported those claims, and the Supreme Court is poised to deliver its final verdict next Friday. A lot of money is at stake, with estimates of the total amount that could be paid out in compensation running between £30bn and £44bn, and with firms such as Santander, Lloyds, Barclays and Close Brothers likely to take the biggest hit. We will have to see what the Supreme Court decides when it delivers its judgment. But even if the Court does rule against the banks, they may have an unlikely saviour at hand. It is none other than the Chancellor. She has already tried to intervene in the litigation once, controversially arguing back in January that the courts should not deliver a windfall for consumers, and any compensation should be 'proportionate to any harm done'. Now there are reports that the Treasury may well go a whole step further and support retrospective legislation to limit the damage that could be done to the City. We can all see what Reeves is worrying about. The sums at stake are enormous. Close Brothers has already set aside £165m to deal with the potential claims against it, while Lloyds has put aside £1.2bn, and some of the other banks may face similar bills. If the mortgage mis-selling scandal from a decade ago is any guide, the final total could be two or three times the initial estimates, and while that would be a bonanza for the lawyers – and there are a lot of hucksters among them who hardly need any encouragement – and for the lucky few who collect a few thousand on a Ford or Nissan they bought on finance fifteen years ago, it could prove catastrophic at a time when the government is desperately trying to revive the City, and kick-start investment and growth. It will make the UK look even more off-limits to the global finance industry than it already is. 'I think having a vibrant car industry and motor finance industry in the UK is important,' argued Reeves when she first started meddling in the case back in January. The trouble is, this is absolutely the worst place to start interfering with the legal process. Here's why. First, the car finance industry might well be fiercely lobbying the Treasury, but the blunt truth is that it is hardly deserving of any help. As most of us will know from personal experience of buying a car, navigating the bewildering special deals, discounts, small print, and all the other shenanigans of the motor trade can be a complete nightmare. You generally come away with the feeling that you have been ripped off, and that is because you probably have been. A £30bn to £40bn bill for compensation might finally force the industry to clean up its act, and start offering far more straightforward deals that people can understand and take or leave as they feel is appropriate. It has worked, at least to some degree, in mortgages, and it can work in finance as well. Next, this is hardly a matter for the Treasury. The claims are being brought under the common law, not a specific act of parliament, and ministers interfere with that at their peril. In reality, we need to respect the common law, as it is fundamental to the rights we all enjoy as citizens of a free country. Just as seriously, we should be strengthening consumer protection, not undermining it just because it is an inconvenience for some big banks. If Reeves concedes on this issue, then the lobbyists will just be back asking for all kinds of exemptions from legal decisions. Finally, there are far better ways of helping the City than this. The Chancellor could rule out another windfall tax on banks; she could scrap stamp duty on share trading; she could increase the annual Isa limit; she could reduce the rate of Capital Gains Tax for investment in British companies; she could offer tax breaks for the booming market in crypto trading; or she could offer any one of a dozen different initiatives that would give finance a boost. Any of them would be far more useful than interfering with car finance claims. It seems extraordinary that a Government that is often far too deferential to lawyers and upholds every bizarre judgment handed down by one of the international courts should be looking to overturn a common law decision by British judges, which, as far as anyone can see, appears perfectly reasonable and will help ordinary consumers. It will set a terrible example.
The Sun
6 hours ago
- The Sun
Rachel Reeves ‘considers overruling' £44billion car finance Supreme Court decision in DAYS
CHANCELLOR Rachel Reeves may step in to overrule the Supreme Court's decision relating to the £44billion car finance scandal. The Supreme Court is set to decide next Friday whether motor finance providers should compensate customers over undisclosed broker commission arrangements. 1 But, the Government is looking at new laws to limit compensation claims against motor finance providers and making them less exposed to the scandal, according to The Guardian. These laws would set clear rules on disclosing broker commission fees and could even apply retroactively to existing cases. If passed, lenders like Lloyds, Santander, Barclays, and Close Brothers could face lower payouts. The move aims to prevent the scandal from spreading to other financial products beyond car loans. The move would be an exceptional step by the Treasury, which previously attempted to influence the Supreme Court proceedings in January. It's believed Government officials have been discussing the practicalities with both the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Business and Trade. In October, the Court of Appeal ruled that motor finance firms broke the law by not telling borrowers about broker commission terms. This decision could lead to £44billion in compensation for millions of people. Motor finance companies argue they believed their practices followed the rules but say the ruling requires much more transparency. Close Brothers and FirstRand Bank appealed the decision, and the Supreme Court heard the case in April. The court will now announce its final decision on motor finance commissions on August 1. The Financing and Leasing Association, which represents motor finance companies, warns that if the Court of Appeal ruling is upheld, it could harm the motor finance market. They say it could lead to less lending, higher borrowing costs, and even company closures. The Government rarely steps in on compensation cases, but the Treasury is worried this scandal could scare off investors and hurt UK businesses. There are also fears that a huge compensation bill could damage the industry. Back in 2013, the coalition Government pushed through the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act to "protect the national economy" from a £130million payout. A Treasury spokesperson said they want a fair decision that gives consumers proper compensation for their losses. They added: "We want to see a balanced judgment that delivers compensation proportionate to losses that consumers have suffered and allows the motor finance sector to continue supporting millions of motorists to own vehicles. "It is now appropriate to let the appeals process run its course." Paul Carlier, the whistleblower who first exposed the scheme in 2016, has accused the Treasury of acting dishonestly to protect motor finance firms at the expense of millions of customers. He claims the FCA and Ombudsman have already covered up the scandal in previous years, depriving consumers of billions in redress. Andy Agathangelou, founder of consumer advocacy group Transparency Task Force said: "This is at least the second time the Chancellor of the Exchequer has hoped to intervene, or should I say interfere, with the judicial process surrounding the car finance scandal. "It's not a good look for her, because she seems happy to in effect take money out of the pockets of innocent, harmed consumers, and put it in the pockets of banks and car finance companies that have broken the law." The Financial Ombudsman Service is struggling with a massive spike in complaints about commission practices, now totalling over 60,000 – triple the number since May 2024. The growing scandal could rival the infamous Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) debacle. In March, the Financial Conduct Authority confirmed it had been granted permission to intervene in the case and had submitted its arguments to the Court. Should the Supreme Court rule that motor finance customers have suffered losses as a result of widespread failings by firms, the FCA is expected to consult on the introduction of an industry-wide compensation scheme. Under a redress scheme, firms would need to figure out if their mistakes caused customers to lose money. If they did, the firms would have to pay the right amount of compensation. The FCA would create rules for firms to follow and make sure they stick to them. This scheme would make things easier for customers compared to making a formal complaint. While waiting for news on the redress scheme, customers can still make a claim directly, but the FCA has advised against using claims management companies or law firms to avoid unnecessary fees. WHAT'S HAPPENING AND WHO'S AFFECTED? By James Flanders, Chief Consumer Reporter What is being investigated? The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) launched an investigation last year into whether motorists were unknowingly overcharged when they took out car loans. The investigation by the City watchdog focuses on past practices where banks allowed car dealerships and brokers to set their own interest rates on loans. Under a now-banned discretionary commission arrangement (DCA), dealerships and brokers had a financial incentive to charge higher interest rates, as their commission increased proportionally. However, many customers were unaware of this practice. A landmark ruling in October 2024, deemed it unlawful for car dealers, acting as brokers, to receive commissions from lenders without obtaining the customer's consent. This applied to both discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs), where dealers set interest rates, and non-discretionary commissions. The Supreme Court is now preparing to rule on whether lenders should be held responsible for compensating drivers. Who is eligible for compensation? There are two criteria you must meet to have a chance at receiving compensation. First, you must be complaining about a finance deal on a motor vehicle (including cars, vans, motorbikes, and motorhomes) that was agreed upon before January 28, 2021. Second, you must have bought the vehicle through a mechanism like Personal Contract Purchase (PCP) or Hire Purchase (HP), which make up the majority of finance deals and mean you own the vehicle at the end of the agreement. Drivers who leased a car through a Personal Contract Hire, where you give the car back at the end of the lease, are not eligible. According to the financial regulator, on a typical £10,000 motor finance agreement, discretionary commission arrangements could have caused customers to pay an additional £1,100 in interest over a four-year term. The FCA extended the deadline for lenders to respond to complaints, meaning borrowers whose lenders received other forms of commission may now also be eligible for compensation. How can I make a claim now? Consumer finance website offers an email template to help you complain to your finance provider. You can download this by visiting Alternatively, you can complain directly without using the template. It's crucial for anyone who took out car finance to file a claim, even if a previous claim was denied. In your complaint, ask whether you were overcharged due to your broker receiving a commission and request the company to rectify this if it occurred. If you're unsatisfied with the company's response, you can escalate your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) at no cost. You have until July 29, 2026, or up to 15 months from the date of the company's final response letter, whichever is longer. Avoid using a claims management firm, as they will take a portion of any successful claim. CUSTOMERS of several major high street banks who were mis-sold car finance could be in line to receive thousands of pounds in redress. In March, Lloyds Banking Group revealed it had set aside another £700million for potential compensation relating to motor finance commission arrangements this morning. The bank said the provision – taken in the fourth quarter, and adding to the £450million provision taken last year – was in light of a court judgment on the issue. Barclays has additionally allocated £90million in response to the car finance scandal, while Santander revealed last year that it had earmarked £295million for potential payouts. Meanwhile, Close Brothers announced it anticipates setting aside up to £165million in the first half of the year to address potential legal and compensation costs arising from the ongoing review into car loan commissions.
