Ulster Former First Active now Ulster Bank Customer
- Thread starter Milo4444
- Start date
Hi @Milo4444
Apologies for delay, missed your post somehow. Got far more docs than with previous data request back in 2014, but still no copy of the "options" letter at the end of my fixed rate.
Thanks to @corktim and @Editiono who I think recommended specifically requesting system notes - it is interesting/frustrating to read the internal notes re my complaint (which I think are still not complete, but how and ever...), which I never received before. I first complained in April 2009 when I came off fixed rate and when it was still First Active. I had extensive discussions with them and UB about the meaning of the "time of transfer " as stated in the fixed rate agreement. Had I had this information from my file when going to the FSO, I would have had a much stronger argument that this was poorly defined - in short the bank (FA & then UB) amended the meaning of this over time. The FSO found in favour of the bank (although I now know this is par for the course given their track record at that time).
I am beyond frustrated. 9 years of this.
Well I am hoping that we will all get our tracker back I was reading over the paperwork again today and the fixed agreement should not be accounted as a tracker removal form ...tracker was mentioned on our forms if this was a normal fixed letter the option for prevailing tracker rate would not be mentioned ...they were covering themselves
SaySomething
Registered User
- Messages
- 657
They've to report progress to the Central Bank. To the best of my knowledge they don't appear again until June/July but I suspect this will be moved to Sept/Oct similar to last year due to the referendum.
Yes agreed however the oireachtas were specifically going to ask representatives from FA to appear before them. I know these would now be from UB but there seemed to be a split between the 2 taken after Padraic-Kissanne said that hardly an FA had been restored. Whenever UB talk it's about UB customers I don't think that I have ever heard them mention their former FA customers voluntarily.
UB seem quite happy to forget about former FA customers - except when it comes to taking our repayments or chasing arrears of course! We are treated the same as UB except when it comes to identifying us as impacted- then we seem to be in no mans land.....
As far as I know all former FA staff were either laid off by UB or else re-employed by them. I’d be surprised if there were any specific representatives for FA in UB’s higher rankings. @Monbretia may know as he worked there back in the day.
However, I’m sure the oireachtas committee could call in UB for a specific meeting focusing on FA only, maybe thats what was meant
As far as I know all former FA staff were either laid off by UB or else re-employed by them. I’d be surprised if there were any specific representatives for FA in UB’s higher rankings. @Monbretia may know as he worked there back in the day.
However, I’m sure the oireachtas committee could call in UB for a specific meeting focusing on FA only, maybe thats what was meant
I had read @Milo4444 post and thought the very same as you @Miakk I doubt there are any FA staff from the senior ranks still in UB. They weren't specifically laid off but were very much encouraged to take the 'voluntary' redundancy (I got 3 phone calls in one week from the top guy at the time!), those that did not that I know personally have had a very rocky time since and few are still in their previous positions.
Those staff I do know who remained are mainly in branches and they stay very quiet about FA as it's seen in a very disparaging manner, basically UB never wanted FA or their staff but RBS foisted it on them. I worked briefly in UB after the merger and ......, well actually words fail me, I don't know how to complete the sentence, enough said!
Those staff I do know who remained are mainly in branches and they stay very quiet about FA as it's seen in a very disparaging manner, basically UB never wanted FA or their staff but RBS foisted it on them. I worked briefly in UB after the merger and ......, well actually words fail me, I don't know how to complete the sentence, enough said!
@Deenie , the FA thing is interesting, there was a few trackers definitely given back initially as there was a poster on Rollercoaster and she was also on here briefly who had got her tracker back and helped several others too with the wording of the letter. All those were given back as a 'gesture' according to UB and they did not admit that it was an error in the first place. After that they seemed to dig in their heels and go with the flock of other banks who all seemed to decide to deny there was ever a right to the tracker.
In my latter years in FA I never heard of a 'tracker removal letter' and any original tracker customer I dealt with who fixed was always to revert to tracker and they used to but somewhere along the lines something changed as you all know!
In my latter years in FA I never heard of a 'tracker removal letter' and any original tracker customer I dealt with who fixed was always to revert to tracker and they used to but somewhere along the lines something changed as you all know!
@ragdal @Monbretia - the now-so-called “tracker removal letter” was never named as such in any of my original correspondence with the bank re my complaint which started back in 2009, nor in the course of my FSO complaint which closed in 2011.
The name “tracker removal letter” seems to have been applied to this particular document around 2010-2011 and retrofitted. It almost seems like UB have said it so much now they see it as fact - a fact which didn’t exist at the time! It’s like an organisational false memory syndrome!
How convenient for UB and how unfortunate for us silly customers, who UB maintain should have known perfectly well that that was what the document meant. But they also seem to think that I am apparently wrong to think that referring to the “prevailing tracker rate “ in this same document might actually meant I had any entitlement to it.
The name “tracker removal letter” seems to have been applied to this particular document around 2010-2011 and retrofitted. It almost seems like UB have said it so much now they see it as fact - a fact which didn’t exist at the time! It’s like an organisational false memory syndrome!
How convenient for UB and how unfortunate for us silly customers, who UB maintain should have known perfectly well that that was what the document meant. But they also seem to think that I am apparently wrong to think that referring to the “prevailing tracker rate “ in this same document might actually meant I had any entitlement to it.
Last edited:
I am stuck waiting to hear - I have already been through the Financial Ombudsman (FSO) back in 2011 and had exhausted the complaints process until the establishment of the Tracker Mortgage Examination (TME) programme by the Central Bank.
I don't think there are any other options available to me.
I don't think there are any other options available to me.
@Monbretia
I was never on a tracker and no where in my documents was tracker ever mentioned,
The letter I got back in June telling me I was impacted due to ‘the use of ambiguous and confusing terminology in our mortgage documentation’ also stated I was being put back on my previous tracker margin + Ecb rate. 1.15% + ecb
I find it so hard to understand that they could analyze my account enough to see I was impacted but they still cannot give me a date of completion
I was never on a tracker and no where in my documents was tracker ever mentioned,
The letter I got back in June telling me I was impacted due to ‘the use of ambiguous and confusing terminology in our mortgage documentation’ also stated I was being put back on my previous tracker margin + Ecb rate. 1.15% + ecb
I find it so hard to understand that they could analyze my account enough to see I was impacted but they still cannot give me a date of completion
Ok then I'm afraid in my opinion you have no case But luckily my opinion doesn't count here, how could you be impacted though if you were never denied your tracker back? How are they putting you back on your tracker if you never had one, the mind boggles!
I think at this stage now they are tying themselves up in knots and instead of dealing with the obvious cases are chasing down back alleys reviewing files that had nothing to do with the main problem.
But luckily my opinion doesn't count here, how could you be impacted though if you were never denied your tracker back? How are they putting you back on your tracker if you never had one, the mind boggles! I think at this stage now they are tying themselves up in knots and instead of dealing with the obvious cases are chasing down back alleys reviewing files that had nothing to do with the main problem.
@Monbretia I was stunned when we were deemed impacted, I cannot understand it myself!
Would there be different wording used rather than tracker that I’m dismissing on my paperwork?
Would there be different wording used rather than tracker that I’m dismissing on my paperwork?
Last edited: