"Also guys, those who AIB have offered trackers back to at a prevailing rate - and where their margin is huge. Margin offered to me is 4.91% , I know most are being offered at around 3.25%.
if you look at your letter of offer, Part 4 section 3.6.3 on my offer this clearly states the only circumstance AIB are allowed to adjust the margin.
On mine it states "The Bank may adjust the Tracker Margin upwards if the Valuation Report values the property at less than the Property Price/Estimate shown on the particulars of Offer of Mortgage Loan. The Bank will notify the customer in writing of the new tracker Margin" There is no other condition that allows AIB to adjust the margin.
No condition anywhere that states tracker margin is subject to market conditions being suitable to AIB or anything like that"
Realistically what ever the margin was when you drew down the mortgage should be the margin for the life of the mortgage unless the house is revalued and you then fall into a different bracket. Cant retrospectively value a house, so what was on offer at time you drew down is what you should be returned to.
Hi.new poster here.awaiting patiently central bank review outcome. We have our mortgage split since 2008.Roughly half tracker(margin .75%) & initially half fixed for 3years.In 2011 not offered tracker option (despite 3.2 option)and on SVR since.have complained etc.and was offered tracker margin 4.91% option in 2014.....my query is, As also stated in 3.2 "at the banks prevailing rates appropriate to the mortgage loan" can I argue that our " mortgage loan" can refer to both parts of our mortgage and that our tracker rate (0.75%) should be offered to us . We are aware that they are separate contracts but wonder what would happen if we tried to move our SVR mortgage to another bank .?
See below from fso 2011 case studies - has similarities to your case and may assist.
The Complainants took out a mortgage with the Bank in October 2006. In October 2007 the Complainants decided to reduce the period of their mortgage and fix the interest rate for a period of 3 years on a portion of their mortgage.
Towards the end of their fixed interest rate period, the Complainants approached their branch of the Bank to enquire as to what options were open to them at the end of their fixed interest rate period.
The Bank informed the Complainants that three options were provided in their loan agreement and these were: take a further fixed interest rate term, switch to a variable interest rate or a switch to a tracker interest rate. The Bank pointed out the loan agreement stated this choice was subject to the prevailing interest rates.
The Bank went on to advise that it had ceased to offer tracker interest rates in 2008 and that consequently, the Complainants could not switch the portion of the mortgage on the fixed interest rate to a tracker interest rate as the tracker interest rate was not a prevailing rate.
The Complainants were unhappy with this decision as they felt contractually entitled to avail of a tracker rate.
While the Ombudsman accepted that the Bank was entitled to stop offering tracker rates as a product, he noted that the Complainants had only switched a portion of their mortgage to a fixed rate. The remaining portion of the Complainants' mortgage had remained on a tracker interest rate. Consequently, as part of the Complainants' mortgage was subject to a tracker interest rate, the Ombudsman was satisfied that this was a prevailing rate within the terms of the loan agreement.
Accordingly the Ombudsman directed the Bank to place the relevant portion of the mortgage onto the tracker rate currently applicable to the remaining portion of the mortgage, backdated to expiry of the fixed interest rate term.
also as well as contacting TDs the Daily Mail have started a campaign called End the Tracker Mortgage Scandal and they are finding it hard to get people willing to go into the newspaper as case studies - if anyone is willing to do it the editor is very happy to give the space in the paper to it.