First Active Lost Tracker but switched Mortgage

smithers

Registered User
Messages
48
I had a first active tracker which i fixed in october 2006, when the fixed rate was up i was told they were no longer offering trackers and that my only options were variable or fixed. I moved to Bank of Ireland the following year as did not think i would ever get a tracker back. I wrote to the central bank recently and then to Ulster bank about the fact that i was never warned that fixing for two years meant never seeing the tracker again. I have received 7 months of letters telling me they are investigating and will come back to me, these letters come out every month or so.

My question is if they do find that i should have been returned my tracker what happens? Can i insist they give me back a tracker mortgage even though i moved banks? Do i get compensation or is it a case of because i moved the mortgage i get nothing? I only moved because i lost the tracker.....
 
I don't think I have seen any case where UB have actually given back a tracker where you have moved mortgage. More likely to be compensation of some sort if your complaint is upheld. How long had you fixed for in 2006? There is a lot of discussion under various threads here on similar cases, I'm sure some of those involved will be along to give you their info.
 
I don't think I have seen any case where UB have actually given back a tracker where you have moved mortgage. More likely to be compensation of some sort if your complaint is upheld. How long had you fixed for in 2006? There is a lot of discussion under various threads here on similar cases, I'm sure some of those involved will be along to give you their info.

I fixed for 2 years in 2006
 
Trackers finished in mid 2008 in FA but of course that was for new customers. Most of the maturing trackers at that stage defaulted back to their tracker rate so that if you did nothing and picked none of the options in the letter the loan automatically went back to the tracker it was on, the letters that went out usually showed the fixed options. Did you get a copy of the letter you signed when fixing or do you have a copy of the letter that went out on maturity of the fixed with the options.
 
Sounds like same situation the individual notabene is in.

I think that was ulster bank as well.

They refused to return his tracker.

I'm that case what the central bank or the ombudsman should do is insist ulster bank pays compensation for the time until now. And return you to tracker at ulster bank.

If they refuse to take you back as a customer due to say underwriting issues then each year they should compensate you to the tune of difference in interest rate that you pay above there tracker rate.
 
i have a copy of the fixed rate authority i signed in 2006 which i copied and sent to Ulster bank, it does not say i will loose my tracker

i didnt realise if i had ignored the options letter it would default to tracker, i rang them to enquire why it was not on the letter and they said i was not entitled to one because they were no longer offering them

rodger it would be great if i got compensation up to now even I do hope they don't just refund me up to 2009, it has cost me thousands extra per year
 
I'd say that was just incompetence on the part of whoever you were talking on the phone to at the time unfortunately, trackers were not an option for new mortgages at that stage or for any existing customer who did not originally have one. I worked in FA at that time and always advised people that if they just wanted to go back to tracker to ignore the letter with the other options, it never mentioned the tracker on the letters only the other options that were available. It seemed logical at the time, these were the other options that were offered as the loan would automatically default to what it came from so that wasn't an option to be ticked as such. I never saw a fixed rate authority that ever mentioned loosing the tracker after fixing, it certainly was not in those forms whatever they say about it now.

Mind you at that time very few people were aware how valuable a tracker would become and many were happy to fix again, later fixes seem to be a bigger problem as the loans were suddenly not defaulting to their original rate, a bit of meddling being done I think with the systems.
 
It is just another example of the trickery by the banks and exactly why the central bank has instigated a review.

I hope you get the justice you deserve.

What is being said about "if you did nothing it would revert automatically to tracker" makes no sense

You rang up and asked for the tracker option and they said there was none.

The two years expired.

Did you choose an option on their form?

Even if you did they hoodwinked you at that stage. And you still deserve to return to tracker either way.
 
There was no tracker option on the forms as that was the default on these loans, you couldn't opt for something you were going to get anyway, the options were if you wanted to pick something different such as a fixed or standard variable. Maybe they were badly worded, I can't remember the exact wording or if it referred to what happened if you didn't pick an option, does anyone have a copy of the fixed rate maturity letter?

But there was no culture in FA branches at that time (2008/09) of hoodwinking customers or actively trying to get them to move from the tracker, the value simply was not known definitely not by frontline staff unless someone on high could see what was coming down the tracks and if they did they were not instructing branch staff to actively target getting people off trackers, in fact it was the opposite until very shortly before trackers were pulled for new customers. It certainly came later after the absorbtion into UB of FA, loans that should have defaulted to original rate did not automatically so something changed in the maturity settings of these loans.

I am wondering did the OP choose an option from that form too? Either way you should have gone back to tracker if that is what you wanted to do.
 
Monbretia I had a FA tracker in 2006 and fixed shortly after. FRA said I would move to variable after but it also that I had the option of the tracker rate. Wasn't offered a tracker in 2008 when fixed expired. They told me I had signed a tracker removal letter but nowhere in the FRA did it refer to a tracker removal.

I think that there was an underhanded effort to get people off trackers. My view is that they were multiple breaches of the CPC 2006.

Seems the central bank enforcement is specifically aimed at FA trackers who fixed between 2006 & 2008
 
With respect I would have a much stronger view than it makes no sense, frankly lot of nonsense being talked above.

I, and I am not alone, had a tracker with FA, signed letters in 2006 to fix rate with no mention of loss of tracker, no mention of tracker removal, or anything like that. Yet at the end I was not given my tracker back. My view is that UB on being the new owner of FA used every trick in the book and plenty not in any book, to deny people trackers. Absolute nonsense to say that if one was on a tracker to simply ignore the UB letter as one would default back to tracker. It didn't happen, fact is UB decided not to give them back.

They ie UB portrayed the FA letter I signed in 2006 as a 'Tracker removal letter' when it wasn't headed like that, never even used words like removal, cessation of tracker or anything that remotely could be construed as such. That is the essence of many of the FA tracker rate problems. I spoke to several people in the bank at the time, got plenty of 'sympathy' on the phone, comments like it seems you should have got a tracker back, etc. All counted for nought. Wish I had recorded the calls with hindsight.

It seems that finally the CB have identified what happened and the Bank will hopefully be held to account. I also hope that the CB review includes a review of how the decisions were arrived at not to give the trackers back, who made them, how high up, etc. These were not one off unfortunate mistakes. They were systematic decisions taken to deny a large number of people trackers. To say otherwise is delusional.
 
Last edited:
Believe what you like, that was the case in FA, can't speak for UB, the letter presented the options, if you didn't go for one you reverted back or should have to the current rate based on the mortgage type you came from if that was a tracker or a standard variable. That's the way the product was set up on computer, if the customer did nothing the fixed rate just expired and previous product type kicked in. Otherwise you would have to contact every one of these customers on expiration to ensure something was done or the account would be in limbo if there wasn't a default on them. I would like to see one of the letters now as I don't remember the exact wording on them.

There was definitely no such thing as tracker removal mentioned in the fixed rate appendix back in 2006 or even later to the best of my recollection, again I don't know what UB put in letters when they took over.
 
I am presenting facts of what happened. My mortgage was on tracker, fixed and did not go back to tracker. That is not a belief with respect.

In my case, and sounds like many others, it is how UB dealt with people on FA mortgages. Appreciate you are talking FA only, but that's not the complete story. The key issue is how UB dealt with the FA mortgages. That is the main point at contention for many people. Can you not see that?
 
Of course I can and I totally agree the bulk of the problem lies with UB but the OP was prior to the closure of FA so I was trying to throw some light on the pre UB procedures. The customer should definitely have gone back to tracker if that is what they were originally on.

Again if anyone has a copy of the FA fixed rate maturity letters from 2008/09 it would be interesting to see the wording on them.
 
Monbreita you are correct that there was no official mention of "tracker removal letter" in the FRA but this is what I have been told it was in writing this year when I complained. Also after doing a data access request there are internal notes to this effect.

So internally the aim was to take people off trackers but to try and hide it and slip it in on the FRA.

There is a major issue for sure seeing as the central bank have called out specific dates with the FA trackers. They must now clearly know what UB / FA were trying to do.
 
Not the actual Fixed Rate Appendix when switching to the fixed but the one you got detailing the options on expiration of the fixed.
 
Ha! This is a very interesting one.

I did my data access request and this is the only document that they have not provided. I questioned them on it and they say they don't hold it which I don't believe. There was another thread here relating to UB "loosing" the same document.

Complaint is currently with the data protection commissioner who is investigating.

Here is the paragraph from my FRA. while it does say I move to the variable which didn't bother me it also states I can take the tracker option on expiry. My fixed expired before trackers were pulled in 2008.

Thought the move to variable was just procedure at the time but know I know different.

upload_2016-5-8_15-54-4.png
 

Attachments

  • image.png
    image.png
    110.6 KB · Views: 20
Last edited by a moderator:
Far from saying anything indicating that the tracker was removed, the paragraph quoted in the document attached to the previous post actually gives one of the options as being a tracker. How the FSO could deem that to be a tracker removal letter is beyond me.
 
My reading of that paragraph is that you could have chosen to go back to the tracker rate when the fixed expired. Did you not choose to do that?
Or was the tracker at that stage more expensive than the variable?
 
Back
Top