I have been dealing with Ulster Bank since January regarding the return of my mortgage to Ulster Bank from AIB. The contract (or loan offer which they call it)which they presented was not the same as that which was offered in the original loan offer/contract.
The contract has been cleaned up in order to favour the bank. For example, the term ' for the life of the mortgage' has been taken out of the new contract. This was an express condition in the previous contract, in that, it established the tracker rate as the default rate for the mortgage. This was confirmed by the FSO in their judgement in my case, stating, that the rate should have automatically returned to the tracker rate at the end of the mortgage.
This has further implications down in the line, in that, if interest rates went high again, and you decided to fix again, instead of returning to your tracker rate as your contract would have deemed, you would now be eligible to be put on an SVR.
The bank asserts that this is a 'substantive remedy' and that they have no further obligations in this regard. They also feel that the terms which they have taken out of the old contract, were 'ambiguous terms' and they do not want an 'ambiguity issue' to arise again. This of course is smoke and mirrors - there was no ambiguity issue in many of the Ulster Bank Contracts, the facts were quite clearly laid out, until Ulster decided to change what the meaning of 'home loan' meant when it suited them.
We have argued, had meetings and emails over the last five months and on the understanding of issuing a solution on Monday, the issued a final response letter, basically like it or lump it. They have declined to issue a generic copy of the loan offer in order to have it sent into the Central Bank to have them confirm with the original contract, to confirm this is what they meant by return to original position. They will not further refund monies accruing since January until the loan offer has been taken up and the mortgage returned to them. Neither have they presented an alternative solution which might have been presented for example if you could not get mortgage approval.
At this stage the only option is again back to the FSO or Court as well as their own appeals panel, unless a customer was happy to accept lesser terms than what they were previously on, fairly outrageous, though not surprising behaviour from them.
The contract has been cleaned up in order to favour the bank. For example, the term ' for the life of the mortgage' has been taken out of the new contract. This was an express condition in the previous contract, in that, it established the tracker rate as the default rate for the mortgage. This was confirmed by the FSO in their judgement in my case, stating, that the rate should have automatically returned to the tracker rate at the end of the mortgage.
This has further implications down in the line, in that, if interest rates went high again, and you decided to fix again, instead of returning to your tracker rate as your contract would have deemed, you would now be eligible to be put on an SVR.
The bank asserts that this is a 'substantive remedy' and that they have no further obligations in this regard. They also feel that the terms which they have taken out of the old contract, were 'ambiguous terms' and they do not want an 'ambiguity issue' to arise again. This of course is smoke and mirrors - there was no ambiguity issue in many of the Ulster Bank Contracts, the facts were quite clearly laid out, until Ulster decided to change what the meaning of 'home loan' meant when it suited them.
We have argued, had meetings and emails over the last five months and on the understanding of issuing a solution on Monday, the issued a final response letter, basically like it or lump it. They have declined to issue a generic copy of the loan offer in order to have it sent into the Central Bank to have them confirm with the original contract, to confirm this is what they meant by return to original position. They will not further refund monies accruing since January until the loan offer has been taken up and the mortgage returned to them. Neither have they presented an alternative solution which might have been presented for example if you could not get mortgage approval.
At this stage the only option is again back to the FSO or Court as well as their own appeals panel, unless a customer was happy to accept lesser terms than what they were previously on, fairly outrageous, though not surprising behaviour from them.