AIB tracker mortgages :date change terms and conditions

[joestrand]

Hi

There are 2 sets of terms and conditions that were issued for AIB tracker mortgages

The earlier terms and conditions does not specifically define a tracker mortgage and clause 3.2 which deals with what options are available at end of fixed rate does not specify right to option of returning to tracker

However clause 3.5 states the terms and conditions in the letter of offer should apply to a variable rate mortgage

If the letter of offer specifies the loan is a tracker with a margin of x% then surely this is what should apply at end of fixed term

The later terms and conditions pertaining to AIB trackers specifies right to option of return to tracker at end of fixed rate in clause 3.2

I have 2 questions

1. When exactly in 2005 or early 2006 did AIB change terms and conditions

2 has anyone on earlier terms and conditions who had a tracker specified in their letter of offer had their case addressed by current AIB tracker review

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Most cases fall into cohorts, which should be treated the same way. It's complicated, but this is how I understand it:

In March 2006, Clause 3.2 was amended to say "At the end of a fixed term you will be offered a tracker at the then prevailing rate".

Cohort 1 - Before March 2006, Tracker rate specified in contract.
The contract did not say that they would get the tracker back at the end of a fixed term.
AIB argues that by fixing, they changed their contract, and so AIB is not restoring their trackers.

"If the letter of offer specifies the loan is a tracker with a margin of x% then surely this is what should apply at end of fixed term"

I think that this is your cohort. You will have to argue that the manner in which you fixed did not make it clear that you would lose your tracker.

Cohort 2 - After March 2006, Tracker rate specified in contract.
The contract said they would get the tracker rate back.
The contract specified the rate
They are getting their tracker back at the rate specified in the contract.

Cohort 3 - After March 2006, no tracker rate specified in contract. Came out of fixed rate before October 2008
The contract said that they would get the then prevailing tracker rate.
They were offered the tracker when their contracts expired. Most accepted it and so are on trackers.

Cohort 4 - After March 2006, no tracker rate specified in contract, came out of fixed rate after October 2008
They were not offered trackers on conclusion of the fixed rate as AIB were no longer doing trackers.
They are being offered them now at 3.67%.
AIB argues, that as this was higher than the SVR , they suffered no loss, and so are not part of the redress programme.

I don't think that AIB's arguments in Cohort 4 are defensible, and they are discussed here:
AIB restoring my tracker - but at 3.67%!

Brendan

 

[cremeegg]

I have just looked casually at this post, and fortunately the issues involved don't affect me, but I was struck again by what an excellent public service you perform here Brendan. There are publicly funded, well staffed, consumer bodies that do far less. You don't get the recognition you deserve.

 

[mister32]

Joestrand I agree 100% with your analysis

I'm in this category/cohort
I would describe it as follows:
There were two possible rates available to early Aib contract holders: tracker and fixed. No other rate described. Therefore after expiry of the fix we return to tracker.

QED

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Thanks for your kind words cremeegg

There are publicly funded, well staffed, consumer bodies that do far less.

That is the real shame of it. The Consumer and Competition Protection Commission and the Central Bank should be advocating on behalf of consumers. They should be explaining all this stuff and telling people how to get their entitlements. As you say, they are well paid to do it, but they sit on their seats pushing paper around instead.

On this tracker issue, Padraic Kissane has done huge work and submitted a detailed and extensive report to the Central Bank. To the best of my knowledge, they have not paid him a penny for it. So he has to charge the customers who have been affected by it. In other words, the borrowers have to pay for the mistakes of their banks and for the lack of action and knowledge by the Central Bank.

Brendan