Its a couple of years since I posted here under an old name attached to an old email address, but I still look in now and then.
Poster Sarenco seems to be very much like the banks - it say x in the contract, therefore that is what applies. Nothing wrong in having that opoinion, but it flies in the face of fairness.
The KBC fixed rate contract sheet was horrendously unfair and ambiguous.
1 - It was one single sheet.
2 - It was attached to a general letter telling you about a rate rise and to "see the special fixed rates attached"
3 - You were given 6-8 working days to make your mind up, sign the form and get to back to them - otherwise the "special rates" would expire. In my case the expiry date was highlighted by a yellow highlighter! To expect someone to be able to get "indepedent legal advice in such a short time in middle of summer holiday season is bordering on ridiculous.
4 - One of their sticking points is they said "get indepednent legal advice" - even if you did, it would be unlikely that a solicitor would necessarily see anything wrong with the form from a legal point of view as main document stated variable rate as did the fixed rate document. A Financial advisor may have noticed, but even that is in question due to the wording of the main mortgage document and the fixed rate instruction.
5 - Head of KBC (IIB) at the time was in the media saying rates were going to continue to rise and that people should fix in now (Irish Times July 2006)
6 - At the time KBC only sold tracker mortages and fixed mortgages - no such thing as a "standard variable rate" was offered to anyone, hence anyone taking a mortgage at the time would not be expected to understand that a "standard variable rate" was a specific rate.
7 - The fixed rate sheet had in bold capitals the fixed rate terms on offer. Fix for ONE year, fix for TWO years, Fix for THREE years. In tiny print it said afterwards it would return to banks standard variable rate. In the Mortgage document, the "tracker" is referred to as a variable rate. Nowhere in any document or glossary of terms WHATSOEVER is standard avraiable rate" explained or mentioned as it simply was not something the bank offered publically at that time. "Standard" at the time was a tracker.
Considering the bank was selling to lay people and not professional finacial people, then under basic customer care, they had the responsibility to inform the customer that this would lead to a significant change for the entire term of the mortgage and it was NOT a One year / Two year or three year change as they made out in the document, but a 20 year, 25 year or 30 year change.
THAT is why the Central Bank finally acted and it is also why the central Bank brought in further changes to the code fo conduct to make the banks understand in very very plain english that they must inform the customer of ALL consequences in relation to any rate change.
Unfortunately the Ombiudsman is like Sarenco and looked only at the words and said tough luck, when in fact they should have looked at the behaviour and what market conditions prevailed at that time and what would "reasonably" be understood by the customer. The ombudsman failed miserably in their investigations, Thankfully the new CB head could see though this and has rightfully launched investigations and it will lead to restoration of trackers.
My guess is that if someone took a court case rather than ombudsman case, they would have been successful as the courts look at the "reasonableness" of a contract. problem is the amounts involved meant a high court action which would ahve cost 6 figures if lost - something no-one was gong to take the chance on. Something the bank knew too!
Whether there is additional compensation or not, that is debatable. But I for one would simply be happy with refund of excess charged (about 45k) and restoration of my 0.95% tracker.
Personally I have faith in Phillip Lane as he would not have been the banks first choice as CB head, nor second, nor third. One person said he would not even have got onto their list. That alone says plenty.