I am hoping someone could advice on what the next step could be for people in similar situations like myself who are stuck on massive variable rate (4.5%). I am one of the seemingly thousands of people who was originally on a tracker mortgage and fixed (at the advice of all banks) but did not know or realise (like everyone) the long term implications of signing that fixed rate form. The fixed rate form did advise (in small writing) that I would thereafter be on a variable rate.
I did question this with the bank as the rates began to fall in 2009 where they advised me that I had signed a documentation.There was not even a highlight (ie bold letters) on the fixed rate instruction document to indicate this change to the standard variable rate. In fact, to make it worse, the original loan offer was also called "a" variable rate (not tracker) that would not go 1.25% above the ECB rate. To me, there is clearly no information to explain the change to a different form of "standard" variable rate and there was also no disclosure of the effects of been moved.
KBC (The Bank of You apparently), as expected, responded to confirm it was “clearly notified of the terms”, “Clear and concise” and “Terms were clearly outlined”. Anyone and everyone knows this is clearly not the case.
I then sent my complaint to Financial Services Ombudsman who wouldn’t even look at my case. They advised “a consumer is not entitled to make a complaint if the conduct complained of—occurred more than 6 years before the complaint is made”.
It is fairly obvious that I didn’t notice this issue until 2009 when I was been removed from the fixed rate but they advise the complaint is regarding the lack of information I was provided when signing the documentation in 2006.
In recent High Court cases (Permanent TSB case) in the challenge to the Ombudsman, I saw comments from the results that “a bank should properly alert its customers of the potentially serious adverse consequences of a particular decision”.
I also researched similar cases in the FSO annual reports over the years where there was examples of cases approved by the FSO where the documentation was not clear and the consequences (good or bad) of moving from the tracker to the fixed interest rate for a set term were not sufficiently set out in the documentation. However I then also saw results of people in similar cases that were rejected by the FSO.
There does not seem to be any consistency or clarity about where people stand. You see front page headlines about people been returned to tracker mortgages following appeals that gives you some hope. It seems a challenge in the high court is the only way this happens.
Is there advice or anywhere for people in my situation to go or should we just forget about this?
I did question this with the bank as the rates began to fall in 2009 where they advised me that I had signed a documentation.There was not even a highlight (ie bold letters) on the fixed rate instruction document to indicate this change to the standard variable rate. In fact, to make it worse, the original loan offer was also called "a" variable rate (not tracker) that would not go 1.25% above the ECB rate. To me, there is clearly no information to explain the change to a different form of "standard" variable rate and there was also no disclosure of the effects of been moved.
KBC (The Bank of You apparently), as expected, responded to confirm it was “clearly notified of the terms”, “Clear and concise” and “Terms were clearly outlined”. Anyone and everyone knows this is clearly not the case.
I then sent my complaint to Financial Services Ombudsman who wouldn’t even look at my case. They advised “a consumer is not entitled to make a complaint if the conduct complained of—occurred more than 6 years before the complaint is made”.
It is fairly obvious that I didn’t notice this issue until 2009 when I was been removed from the fixed rate but they advise the complaint is regarding the lack of information I was provided when signing the documentation in 2006.
In recent High Court cases (Permanent TSB case) in the challenge to the Ombudsman, I saw comments from the results that “a bank should properly alert its customers of the potentially serious adverse consequences of a particular decision”.
I also researched similar cases in the FSO annual reports over the years where there was examples of cases approved by the FSO where the documentation was not clear and the consequences (good or bad) of moving from the tracker to the fixed interest rate for a set term were not sufficiently set out in the documentation. However I then also saw results of people in similar cases that were rejected by the FSO.
There does not seem to be any consistency or clarity about where people stand. You see front page headlines about people been returned to tracker mortgages following appeals that gives you some hope. It seems a challenge in the high court is the only way this happens.
Is there advice or anywhere for people in my situation to go or should we just forget about this?