KBC Summary of the KBC Cohorts

[peemac]

Yes Brendan but KBC have returned trackers to people with no mention of trackers in their contracts . They have returned trackers where the contract said fixed rate to roll to "prevailing rate" . Therefore the prevailing rate must have been a tracker rate ?

In any such case there was an additional written communication that could be relied on - the infamous flyer - which gave a specific margin that would be used

I don't think there has been any case of a non flyer period customer that did not have % above refi rate in the special conditions of their contract being given a tracker .

I used the "revert" and rate wording arguments in my ombudsman appeal in 2012 and both were resoundingly rejected

I'll try and dig it out and upload it

 

[Brendan Burgess]

In any such case there was an additional written communication that could be relied on - the infamous flyer - which gave a specific margin that would be used

This is very important and I have seen trustnobody's false logic in other cases.

Johnny had Clause A and got tracker redress.
Mary had Clause A, so she should get tracker redress as well.

But Johnny did not get his tracker redress due to Clause A. He got it because of Clause z or a flyer.

Mary did not have Clause Z or the flyer, so she does not get her tracker back.

Brendan

 

[peemac]

And Mary rightly feels aggrieved, but so far there is nothing Mary can use to get a tracker.

But remember, Mary never had a tracker.

 

[Trustnobody]

The purpose of my original post was to try to bring together all the kbc info on all the various threads. It’s really helpful I think, to tease out the issues many of which don't apply to my own case. I would hate to discourage people from pursuing their cases with absolutes however. The reality is none of us know and we don’t have all the facts. I suspect the flyer cohort would have been told on these threads that they didn’t have a hope in hell getting their tracker back, not having any reference to a tracker rate or a % above ecb rate in their loan offers.


@peemac and @ Brendan... I agree that those without a margin above ecb rate in their contracts have been redressed based on an additional communication ie the flyer, as far as we know.

2 points here

1. Just because kbc say “ only those who applied on certain dates covered by the flyer are entitled to a tracker” does not mean it's true … as anyone redressed already and spent years fighting for justice knows
   
   
2. With respect I think you are missing my point on the prevailing rate ….. you are taking what kbc say about the flyer cohort and relying on it to discount other arguments…..flyer aside, if a borrowers contract says you are on a fixed rate for x number of years after which you will roll onto the prevailing rate … and kbc now agree these people with these contractual terms should have been on a tracker rate… it seems logical to conclude that the prevailing rate was a tracker rate
   

If that is the case the prevailing rate has not been applied correctly to many more accounts

This brings me back to point 1… it is not beyond probability that kbc have used their arbitrary flyer dates to contain this problem and to deflect from a much bigger prevailing rate argument.


This is a stand alone argument in my view. There are more arguments it appears, relating to the flyer itself and the dates which have been applied, the ambiguity around the description or absence of description of rates / prevailing rate, communications to borrowers and to/ from brokers that accounts would roll onto trackers, to name a few.

 

[peemac]

The "prevailing" argument won't stand up.

Prevailing means current

Considering that variable rates by their nature change, to say that a prevailing variable rate is one set in stone at the
time of start of fixed rate simply won't work

Also the wording is "at the end of the fixed rate period "

I know, I used that argument and it was completely rejected. Even when I got my own legal advice,, I was told it wasn't an argument to use

I think it all goes back to having something in writing that has a % above ecb refi rate on it.

The only argument left in kbc imo is the dating of the flyer.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

flyer aside, if a borrowers contract says you are on a fixed rate for x number of years after which you will roll onto the prevailing rate … and kbc now agree these people with these contractual terms should have been on a tracker rate…

Where has KBC agreed that?

 

[Darn40]

HI Darn40 were you returned to a tracker on the account that had that wording?

No
They said that my account was not in scope, whatever that is suppose to mean

 

[Jazzer1]

think it all goes back to having something in writing that has a % above ecb refi rate on it.

The only argum

Peemac, would the handbook that came with your application be part of your contract?
In the Handbook it suggests that any mortgage application could change over to a Tracker after expiry of their fixed term. If people had this booklet along with their application, would they have a case?

 

[Trustnobody]

Where has KBC agreed that?

You are right Brendan they havent explicitly agreed that. I am just looking at all angles for arguments sake.
The flyer cohort have that wording as far as we know. Even if you accept Kbc's statement on why they have redressed the flyer cohort, the flyer itself presumably doesnt negate the loan offer . The redressed borrowers were to roll to the prevailing rate after a fixed period. Kbc have restored them to trackers. Therefore it follows that the prevailing rate was a tracker rate. Otherwise you are saying the loan offer wording is irrelevant and superseded by the flyer yet rely on the loan offer elsewhere.

Another point is that kbc have tied the flyer to application date of the borrower. This arguably ties the prevailing rate to the application date.

And again the dates applied to the flyer cohort appear arbitrary and there is another separate argument there .

 

[Trustnobody]

The "prevailing" argument won't stand up.

Prevailing means current

Considering that variable rates by their nature change, to say that a prevailing variable rate is one set in stone at the
time of start of fixed rate simply won't work

Also the wording is "at the end of the fixed rate period "

I know, I used that argument and it was completely rejected. Even when I got my own legal advice,, I was told it wasn't an argument to use

I think it all goes back to having something in writing that has a % above ecb refi rate on it.

The only argument left in kbc imo is the dating of the flyer.

I understand your argument Peemac and you might be right all things being equal but from reading the threads and the individual circumstances of many borrowers here it seems to me that there are a range of issues when viewed together that might chip away at that position particularly when the definitions around rate / prevailing rate are ambiguous

People applied for tracker products and arguably they were sold tracker products with a fixed rate period at the outset. Retrospectively KBC say they are SVR products. I dont think kbc are using your argument re prevailing rate from the posts here. It might be a can of worms they don't want to open.

@ peemac is there a new FSO in place since you brought your case ?

 

[Brendan Burgess]

The redressed borrowers were to roll to the prevailing rate after a fixed period. Kbc have restored them to trackers. Therefore it follows that the prevailing rate was a tracker rate.

It does not follow at all.

You and I both get mortgage approval from Bank of Ireland for €100,000.
You go back to them and say you need €110,000 and they reassess you and give you €110,000.
That doesn't mean that should also get €100,000 because you got it.

You and I had mortgages which said we would roll off onto the prevailing rates.
But I also have a flyer which says I will roll off onto a tracker rate at 1.5%.
You don't have this flyer.

I am entitled to the 1.5% rate - you are not.

Otherwise you are saying the loan offer wording is irrelevant and superseded by the flyer yet rely on the loan offer elsewhere.

Absolutely, the flyer superseded the contract as it was to my benefit.

If it had been the other way around, they flyer would not have superseded the contract.
For example, let's say we had a contract which said "At the end of the fixed rate period you will go onto a tracker of 1.5%"
But KBC issued a flyer saying that they had withdrawn tracker mortgages.
That would not be valid.

The flyer can only increase the rights of the affected borrower.

Brendan

 

[Trustnobody]

@ Brendan
I appreciate what you are saying Brendan but to tease it out further. Are you saying the prevailing rate wording that we assume is in their loan offers is now irrelevant to the flyer cohort OR are you saying that the prevailing rate for the flyer cohort is a tracker rate?

If the prevailing rate is a tracker for them, then

1. How can there be different prevailing rates for people coming off fixed or discounted terms at the same time, surely the prevailing rate is the prevailing rate .
   
   
2. The prevailing rate is clearly tied by KBC to the application date as this is what KBC used to identify this cohort
   

If you say the prevailing rate wording is irrelevant to the flyer cohort then we are back to looking at all the issues raised in the threads. The starting point is KBC’s position . Let’s look again at what they say about the flyer cohort.

“c. 650 PDH (Private Dwelling Home) mortgage accounts are now also identified as impacted. These related to new mortgage applications in the period November 2006 to February 2008 that drew down their mortgage on a fixed rate with a roll off to a standard variable rate. While these customers were never on a tracker rate, KBC has decided to offer these PDH customers a tracker rate product if the account is still open.

In later statements they tied the cut off dates into the loan application date

Mr. Wim Verbraeken


We allow for the normal terms of the delay between a draw-down date and the application date. That is why we take into account the application date rather than the draw-down date. We believe that was the influencing factor. That was the moment that customers would have made their choice and would have been led by the information in the leaflet.”


So KBC are saying the flyer cohort bought an SVR product but KBC have decided to give them a tracker because they may have been influenced by the flyer between these particular dates. Does this stand up? If this cohort’s right to a tracker came from the flyer, they were sold a tracker product not an SVR product and this statement by KBC is a red herring. These people bought tracker products and they were rightly returned to tracker products So the question arises why are KBC saying that these borrowers bought SVR products when KBC by their actions of redressing these people are conceding that they bought tracker products?


KBC aren’t known for their generosity. Their actions to date have shown they want to limit their exposure as much as possible. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that KBC are using the flyer and the arbitrary dates to ringfence these borrowers and shut down all other avenues of arguments posed by your posters such as


They were only selling tracker products at this time

The prevailing rate argument as a stand alone argument

The ambiguity around definitions of rates and prevailing rates

People applied for tracker products and brokers were selling tracker products

The flyer dates being relied upon by kbc


The list goes on…….

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Are you saying the prevailing rate wording that we assume is in their loan offers is now irrelevant to the flyer cohort OR are you saying that the prevailing rate for the flyer cohort is a tracker rate?

It's not as complicated as you are making it appear.

There is no real basis anywhere that I have seen to show that the prevailing rate would be a tracker. It's possible that the prevailing rate when a borrower took out the loan was a tracker rate, but it would be clear that the reference to prevailing refers to the rate when the fixed rate ended.

The flyer makes the "prevailing rate" term redundant as that takes precedence as it's more favourable to the customer.

Jazzer quoted from a booklet which said

If someone had that booklet when they took out their mortgage, I would think that they too should have been offered a tracker mortgage when the fixed rate ended. The contract did not entitle them to one, but I think that the booklet would.

Brendan

 

[Trustnobody]

Mmm @ Brendan I think KBC would like it to be that simple and clear cut because it shuts down all other issues raised by posters here.
I'l say it again look at what kbc themselves say about the flyer cohort. They say they were on an SVR product when clearly they were on a tracker product on your reading of the situation and indeed correctly . Why?

 

[Trustnobody]

Jazzer quoted from a booklet which said
View attachment 3607

Would be great if all the handbooks from 2005 to 2008 could be uploaded

 

[Brendan Burgess]

These related to new mortgage applications in the period November 2006 to February 2008 that drew down their mortgage on a fixed rate with a roll off to a standard variable rate.

They say they were on an SVR product when clearly they were on a tracker product on your reading of the situation and indeed correctly

If these are the people to whom you are referring, it is fairly simple. I have said it a few times, but I don't think you want to hear.
1) The contract did not give them a right to a tracker on completion of their fixed rate.
2) If there had been no flyer we would not be having this discussion.
3) But those reasonably covered by the flyer were promised something to which they were not contractually entitled.
4) So the Central Bank persuaded KBC to give these people trackers

It is a reasonable argument to make that you should have been included in the flyer group. It is a reasonable argument to make that the booklet you received said you could choose a tracker.

But it's not reasonable to expect a tracker, where neither the contract nor any other communication with you mentioned tracker.

Brendan

 

[Trustnobody]

To be clear Brendan this is not about my case which relates to other issues, I was just interested in opening up the issues for discussion and trying to bring all the issues on various threads to one place . By teasing out the issues I'm not ignoring what you are saying . It is far from simple in my opinion and I think it is dangerous to deal in absolutes when none of us are in full possession of the facts . You may very well be right Brendan if your assumptions are correct. The CB must have had grounds to place pressure on KBC and exploring those grounds might help people here
Happy Easter

 

[peemac]

The problem with the booklet text is it says "when the fixed rate comes to an end, you can switch to another fixed rate or a variable rate or a tracker rate"

So those options only come into force at the last day of your fixed rate. But as trackers were gone, this option would not be valid

It also shows that there was a difference between a variable rate and a tracker rate .


It will be nigh on impossible to convince fso or anyone else of entitlement to a tracker unless there is something somewhere that provides a specific margin over ecb/refi rate.

And whilst the ombudsman has changed since my case, they still have to look at the evidence and this prevailing rate argument just won't wash.

 

[Gimmestrength]

The problem with the booklet text is it says "when the fixed rate comes to an end, you can switch to another fixed rate or a variable rate or a tracker rate"

So those options only come into force at the last day of your fixed rate. But as trackers were gone, this option would not be valid

It also shows that there was a difference between a variable rate and a tracker rate .


It will be nigh on impossible to convince fso or anyone else of entitlement to a tracker unless there is something somewhere that provides a specific margin over ecb/refi rate.

And whilst the ombudsman has changed since my case, they still have to look at the evidence and this prevailing rate argument just won't wash.

That is your opinion Peemac and you may be right. But you may also be wrong! ... people should not be discouraged, based on an opinion here, from pursuing the bank if they believe or are told they have a case.

Kbc has now admitted to 4,000 impacted cases including the 650 or so in the flyer cohort, having initially denied any problem at all. So all avenues are still worth exploring even if the bank and others are trying to shut it down. And there are lots of other avenues besides prevailing rate argument

 

[Jazzer1]

The problem with the booklet text is it says "when the fixed rate comes to an end, you can switch to another fixed rate or a variable rate or a tracker rate"

So those options only come into force at the last day of your fixed rate. But as trackers were gone, this option would not be valid

Thanks for your reply peemac to the wording on the booklet. But what I cannot understand is, KBC did say in black and white that the choice was yours what product you wanted after expiry of your fixed rate and that included a tracker rate. KBC can not just say that the product was not available anymore. Did the wording in the booklet not influence peoples decision? If people go to the Ombudsman with the booklet that came with their application with this wording, Would they not have some sort of a case?