AIB repossessed my Buy to Let, but now say I should have been on tracker!

N

nowhere123

Registered User
Messages
27
So I had a buy to let property re possessed on me by the EBS almost 2 years ago. A liquidator was appointed and the property was sold in a matter of weeks. Needless to say there is a very big shortfall between the price the property sold for and what i owed on it.

For almost 2 years I didn't hear a word from the EBS regarding the shortfall. Then out of the blue i get a phone call informing me that i should have been on a tracker rate, and not the expensive variable rate that i was on. Being on a tracker meant i could have afforded the repayment on the mortgage and not lost the property.

Obviously losing a buy to let is no where near as painful as losing a home (which has happened some of their customers) but does anyone have any experience of a situation like this?
What kind of outcome can i hope for from the bank?
A total write off of the outstanding debt would be nice but given that i've lost a good asset i'm expecting some compensation at a minimum.
 
This is a very interesting case isn't it. But what should the compensation be.

Nowhere123 what would you be happy with?

If you were given back the house, as if you'd made the correct repayments up to today, would that seem fair?
Or
A writedown of the outstanding debt
Or
A writedown and some compensation.

You wouldn't want the first option if you were in NE presumably?
 
Solicitor contacted.
In terms of compensation i'm unlikely to get the property back as it's already been sold. But it begs the question, should the bank have to replace the property with one of a similar value.
At this point i think a writedown of the debt and compensation would suffice. But, as you say, what should the compensation be and how would if be determined.

Just wondering if anyone else has had this experience?
Thanks.
 
Is your solicitor someone experienced in this kind of case? Make sure you get a written quotation of the costs involved. And the likely outcomes. Immediately the solicitor Jim Stafford who posts on here springs to mind.
 
Bronte said:
Is your solicitor someone experienced in this kind of case? Make sure you get a written quotation of the costs involved. And the likely outcomes. Immediately the solicitor Jim Stafford who posts on here springs to mind.
Click to expand...

I am not 100% sure that he is experienced but i will ask him.
Thanks.
 
nowhere123 said:
So I had a buy to let property re possessed on me by the EBS almost 2 years ago. A liquidator was appointed and the property was sold in a matter of weeks.
Click to expand...

Hi nowhere

I would expect that the shortfall will be written off.

In most family home cases where a property was repossessed, it's because the borrower wasn't paying anything at all. So they didn't lose their home because of the rate, but because they weren't paying anything.

If you were making payments which would have been adequate if you were on the tracker rate, you should get additional compensation.

If you were paying nothing anyway, I don't think you should get anything other than a recalculation of the balance outstanding.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Hi nowhere

If you were making payments which would have been adequate if you were on the tracker rate, you should get additional compensation.

If you were paying nothing anyway, I don't think you should get anything other than a recalculation of the balance outstanding.

Brendan
Click to expand...


Hi Brendan,

For the year prior to the appointment of the liquidator I was basically just paying them the rent which I was receiving from the property. This was only about 50% of the actually repayment though. Hence the repossession.

Do I have a case to argue I’ve lost any future economic benefit from the property? The plan was to sell it in 20 years time once the mortgage was paid off. I’ve lost the ability to do this now.

Thanks.
 
nowhere123.

If the sums on purchase/debt/sale price add up to no great loss for you and AIB write off shortfall, leave it at that.
No point in continuing (war) , wars are too long and life isn,t!

If the figures show you have lost a lot, by all means pursue.

Question for you , and its meant with respect , so please don,t take offense.
Had property prices not risen , would you pursue? ie would you have taken the 20 year plan, if losses continued ?
 
nowhere123 said:
I was basically just paying them the rent which I was receiving from the property. This was only about 50% of the actually repayment though. Hence the repossession.
Click to expand...

Have to say that I haven't much sympathy for people who just pay the rent as if the lender is responsible for the shortfall.

In most cases, 50% of the SVR repayment would not cover the tracker repayment.

So I am guessing that the loss was not caused by the tracker issue alone, although it may have contributed to it.

Brendan
 
Gerry Canning said:
nowhere123.
Had property prices not risen , would you pursue? ie would you have taken the 20 year plan, if losses continued ?
Click to expand...

Well I was looking at the long term. Yes prices dropped (a lot). But over a 20 year period i would have expected a rise. The property is in a very good area.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Have to say that I haven't much sympathy for people who just pay the rent as if the lender is responsible for the shortfall.

In most cases, 50% of the SVR repayment would not cover the tracker repayment.

Brendan
Click to expand...

That was just for a year prior to repossession during a period of unemployment that i went through. Before that I was meeting the full repayment for 5 years or so.
 
Thousands for the pain and suffering and the hardship and stress it cost at home let alone the financial aspect .it would sound better if it was family home though .Best of luck and happy hunting .
 
nowhere123 said:
That was just for a year prior to repossession during a period of unemployment that i went through. Before that I was meeting the full repayment for 5 years or so.
Click to expand...

I am puzzled that you were making full repayments for the 5 years before and for the year before the repossession you were paying over the rent that you were receiving to the Bank. I have never heard of a repossession taking place in those circumstances. There would appear to be a gap in the facts from my perspective?.
 
Hi nowhere,

I've noticed that several of the regular posters here tend to try and dampen down the expectations of effected borrowers. I can understand the merit in not building false expectations.

No doubt every case is different and it seems the Bank is leaving the complex cases to the tail end of the review.

In my view, where there was a good engagement from the effected borrowers, and where they made genuine efforts to maintain full payments over a prolonged period of time before losing the property, then the Bank will find it difficult to argue against paying compensation.

They say hind sight is 20:20 vision.. I think the Banks are on a sticky wicket if they argue properties would have been lost anyway regardless of the variable rate being applied instead of the tracker in such instances.

where there was no engagement or genuine efforts to pay.. thats a different story.

I think all posters should withhold judgement on specific cases in the absence of knowing the full facts of each case. I know I found it very annoying here in the past when assumptions were made about my scenario.

good luck

pfs
 
I arranged a 'voluntary' surrender of a BTL with the EBS in 2014 and this was through IMHO. Property sold in 2015. There was a large shortfall which EBS wrote off (> €100k) and I have to pay a much smaller figure than this, to share the burden of the shortfall, back to them over 7 years.

Interested to hear why the OP didn't deal with EBS about the BTL through IMHO as this route was available from late 2013?

On a related point I have received a call from EBS recently to say that my BTL loan was not on the correct buy to let rate and they will be in touch with details/ redress figures.

Life is bizarre when you deal with EBS. I will be back I'm sure for advice when I get the letter from EBS.
 
PFS7979 said:
I think all posters should withhold judgement on specific cases in the absence of knowing the full facts of each case. I know I found it very annoying here in the past when assumptions were made about my scenario.
Click to expand...

not to hark back but you brought it up. you come to post on an internet forum, one has to take all points of view. Either that or read what you want and dont feel the need to reply to it. You give the facts you feel are pertinent from a financial stand point because you dont want to give too much away. And as a result people make assumptions.
 
peteb said:
not to hark back but you brought it up. you come to post on an internet forum, one has to take all points of view. Either that or read what you want and dont feel the need to reply to it. You give the facts you feel are pertinent from a financial stand point because you dont want to give too much away. And as a result people make assumptions.
Click to expand...


fair enough point.. people make assumptions.

I also think its fair and reasonable as a person effected by this issue to express a view and make a reply...
 
I absolutely understand this.

If a customer was paying a higher variable or fixed rate then it's likely that a reduced repayment wouldn't have met the interest portion of the loan. Unlike if they were on a lower tracker rate.

When the unpaid interest is added then the situation gets compounded and the shortfall gets larger.

In those circumstances it's easy to see where the bank would ask for a voluntary sale/surrender on a BTL because the interest portion isn't even being paid and the arrears continue to increase the longer the reduced repayments continue.

If the mortgage had been on a tracker rate then the interest would have been covered, and possibly a very small amount of capital paid. Far more affordable and the pressure to surrender wouldn't have been there.
 
Last edited:
If I were in situation of nowhere123 I'd be looking at the difference between today's valuation of house versus the price it sold at, + an estimated value of tracker over svr for remaining period the tracker would have been for + the amount overcharged + 15% overcharge compensation.

If you can calculate a ballpark figure on above, then that's what I'd be aiming for.
 
deanpark said:
Interested to hear why the OP didn't deal with EBS about the BTL through IMHO as this route was available from late 2013?
Click to expand...

Had no idea what the IMHO was. I was naive in my early dealings with the bank around this loan. I only engaged the services of a solicitor after the liquidator was appointed and was told it was too late to stop the sale of the property.
I'm not a professional investor so the entire experience was unchartered waters for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top