That is accepted on the basis of what we know...my point is that given the ambiguity around how the mortgage is described in the Offer Letter as 'variable' it would not be outside the bounds of possibility that you you could interpret 'home loan variable rate' in an MFA to represent a continuation of what was first outlined in your offer letter...that's my view, biased maybe but not unreasonable...
In relation to the UB cases, while Sarenco is categoric in his view that they have nothing to do with CPC, I don't know if I would be that sure. UB decided not to challenge these cases at law and their correspondence to customers talk about the nature of the MFA and the lack of clarity. In addition the FSO example highlighted in earlier post does not refer to the customer having a contractual right to return of Tracker...more it talks about vague, misleading and ambiguous documentation. I'm not saying definitively but I don't think you can just rule it out that there was not a link in these cases to Consumer Protection Code (I'm determined to find proof !!) ...Ombudsman ruling;
It seems the Complainant was never advised that the Ulster Bank Home Loan Rate is also known as the standard variable rate. It seems to be me that the is nomenclature utilised by the Bank that lies at the very heart of the matter. .............
...................I do not believe the Complainant was adequately advised of the fact that the standard variable rate would apply to his house mortgage at the conclusion of the fixed rate period, as opposed to the tracker rate, if he opted not to select an alternative product.
It is my considered opinion that the terminology used by the Bank in the above quoted paragraph of the Fixed Rate Authority is ambiguous, vague and misleading...............
.......I find that in view of the discrepancies in the terminology used by the bank and the confusion caused thereby, when the Complainant signed the Fixed Rate Authority, he formed a legitimate expectation that his house mortgage would revert to the tracker rate of 1.05% above the ECB rate, upon termination of the fixed rate term.
For the reasons outlined above, this complaint has been substantiated. I find the bank acted wrongfully by failing to offer the Complainant the option of reverting to the original tracker rate of 1.05% above the ECB rate upon expiry of the fixed rate period of the 31 July 2008.