According to the Central Bank: The Examination requires all lenders to examine:
- The extent to which they met their contractual obligations to their customers
- Their compliance with their obligations under relevant consumer protection regulations in their dealings with their customers
- Their communications with customers in respect of these matters.
The Consumer Protection Code tells us : A regulated entity must ensure that in all its dealings with customers and within the context of its authorisation it:
2.1 acts honestly, fairly and professionally in the best interests of its customers and the integrity of the market;
2.2 acts with due skill, care and diligence in the best interests of its customers;
2.3 does not recklessly, negligently or deliberately mislead a customer as to the real or perceived advantages or disadvantages of any product or service;
2.4 has and employs effectively the resources, policies and procedures, systems and control checks, including compliance checks, and staff training that are necessary for compliance with this Code;
2.5 seeks from its customers information relevant to the product or service requested;
2.6 makes full disclosure of all relevant material information, including all charges, in a way that seeks to inform the customer;
2.7 seeks to avoid conflicts of interest;
2.8 corrects errors and handles complaints speedily, efficiently and fairly;
There are numerous examples in various mortgage contracts that I have seen where the two sentences in bold above conflict. From the wording above I can't see how anyone coming off a fixed rate and rolling to the prevailing variable rate wasn't offered a tracker, if trackers were on offer either at the beginning or end of the fixed period. Ultimately it will be the courts who will decide imo.