Tracker rate decisions by the FSO. What is the rationale?

G

Gerard123

Registered User
Messages
294
How successful have people been in getting tracker rates restored. For a variety of reasons, typically due to fixing rates for a period, Banks have refused to give people their tracker rates back at the end of the fixed period. Would appreciate responses to the following for those in this situation:

1 Did you appeal to the Bank and was the appeal successful, i.e. did you get the tracker back?
2 How long did it take? Can you name the Bank (not required if you cannot for whatever reason)?
3 If not, did you appeal to the FSO and did you win the case?
4 Reason for the FSO decision (i.e. main reason why you won or lost)?
4 Was the mortgage on your one principal residence or an investment property?
5 Did you do all the work yourself or use an advisor to assist (do not name them)?
6 Please provide any other info you feel is useful (short summary please).

Thanks.
 
Thanks Brendan. Yeah had checked other info on the site and appreciate the link. Bit dated so was really trying to understand what has been happening in recent years. Seems to be massive inconsistency in the FSO rulings. Trying to see if there is any logic, e.g. FSO is consumer 'friendly' re PPRs but Bank friendly on Investment Properties, or interprets the passage of time in different ways (e.g. the longer one waits until they complain the more likely it is that the FSO rules against).

Also appears that the FSO approach has 'hardened' against consumers and that the FSO increasingly has taken a legalistic approach without any regard for how the market worked in practice, requirement for 'simple English' in legal docs, etc. FSO seems to have ruled against people and said f0r example that the Bank had advised people to get legal review/advise. Yet that was not the practice.

I lost my FSO case even though two separate financial advisors (one a regular contribution to this site) told me I had what they considered a very clear case. In the case against me one of the reasons that the FSO rules was that the Bank did not offer trackers anymore (even though in other cases he ruled for he stated that the absence of a current tracker cannot be used by a Bank to deny a customer a tracker, if they had a tracker entitlement). Mine was a buy to let situation and it is my very strong sense that he ruled against me as a buy to let investor. I believe that the FSO was far too Bank friendly and accepted the Banks terms far too easily. For example, he accepted that one letter I signed was a tracker removal letter, even though that phrase or anything inferring it did not exist on the letter. In fact of the three options on the letter, one was a prevailing tracker option. So how he could accept that a letter could be called a tracker removal letter, when it actually provided an option of a tracker and wasn't called a tracker removal letter is absolutely mind boggling.

My only option was the high court where I was never going to go, cost, publicity, etc. I am approaching the end of the 6 year period from when I was moved to a SVR, despite me never agreeing. While the original documentation transferring to fixed is now 9 years old, I am still debating if I can take a second case to the FSO on a much narrower point (ie refusal to give me an option of a tracker in line with the letter). The latter is still within 6 years (much of which I spent trying to get my tracker back to no avail!).

Does anyone have any experience of doing something like this or is the FSO likely to simply reject a second case taken to it?
 
Hi Gerard

if you are interested in just how the FSO rules, then edit the title and content of your first post. It could be a good thread.
 
Gerard
Apologies for not replying sooner I only occasionally check in on AAM.

I have two cases each with two big lenders.

I am only getting organised now to fight the cases.
Initially I was put off when ombudsman told me the 6 year period was elapsed.
But then I engaged a financial advisor.
That seems to be going well but only when I get back on tracker will I know for sure.
I do get impression there is a consensus now that the banks continue to play dirty tricks. This is slowly being righted by examples such as the Millar case and the PTSB case.
Not too many public representatives are standing up for the consumer.
Only one opposition spokesperson comes to mind.
The thing is if one case is upheld by ombudsman would not all similar cases automatically be switched?
I don't think that's happening.

Best Regards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top