BoI never offered me a tracker. Should they have?

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Engine Driver

Registered User
Messages
4
Hi,
I recently requested a copy of my Mortgage Loan Offer Letter from BoI, August 2004, which I received this morning. There was no mention of a tracker rate in the offer. My mortgage was fixed for 12 months @ 2.74% and then changed to variable at 3.55%. I subsequently:
fixed at 4.09% in 2005,
fixed at 4.39% in 2011,
fixed at 4.05% in 2013,
fixed at 3.65% in 2016.

I was never at any stage offered a chance to avail of the ECB Tracker rate since taking out my mortgage in 2004, only ever given the choice between the existing variable rate or the fixed rate. To date I haven't received any correspondence from the Tracker Review Board.

I'm wondering if anyone can advise me as to whether I have an argument that I had been unfairly denied the chance of availing of the ECB tracker rate and, if so, where do I go from here.
 
No. You have no case.

You were never on a tracker. You never lost a tracker unfairly.

You could have asked for a tracker. You could have moved to another lender if they refused you.

Brendan
 
Hi Brendan,
Thank you for your response. Would I have a case for arguing that the best advise was withheld by BoI in not advising me to take out a tracker mortgage, or is that merely clutching at straws?
 
While no one who never got a tracker mortgage is being put "back" on one, and I think there is no way that you are going to get a tracker, your point is not unreasonable in the context of financial institutions selling financial advice.

In my opinion you have no less a case than people who lost their trackers through fixing, without a contractual opportunity to go back on one. In fact you probably have a better argument, they had a tracker and gave it away, you never had one.
 
"I bought a coat for €300 in a boutique in 2004. I've just twigged Dunnes were selling a better coat for €100. The boutique owner knew that but withheld their best advice. Have I any case against them now?"

This thread is mad.
 
Should the panel beater have advised you that you didn't need a respray, just get it buffed.
 
Have to agree with previous posters, you never had one so have not been deprived of it, when you started in 2004 who knows now what was best advice for your situation. You may not even have qualified for one depending on bank policy at the time. Have a go by all means but it's a bit of jumping on the bandwagon with the benefit of hindsight.
 
More seriously, there is an expectation that financial sales people offer their clients advice, many of them even call themselves "financial advisers". That is what is mad.

People going into a bank should be warned that they are entering into a major financial commitment with a profit seeking organisation that has its own best interests at heart not yours.

When we have people selling insurance sending out letters detailing the basis of their advice, we are in a mad world. If some people take that madness seriously and expect to receive advice in their best interests from financial institutions what can we expect.
 
T McGibney
Regarding your reply: Is there a review ongoing regarding the boutique's financial practices?
I'm looking for advice so I know where I stand, whether I have an argument or not. Your sarcastic analogy doesn't help.
 
Yes but the review is into people being deprived of their contractual right to a tracker they once held.
 
Engine Driver said:
T McGibney
Regarding your reply: Is there a review ongoing regarding the boutique's financial practices?
I'm looking for advice so I know where I stand, whether I have an argument or not. Your sarcastic analogy doesn't help.
Click to expand...

Practical answer. You stand nowhere, you will not be reviewed, you will not be getting a tracker.

Philosophical answer. You are no less deserving, in my opinion, than many people who will get a tracker reinstated. Not because you deserve to be compensated for a decision you made years ago without fully understanding the consequences or alternatives, you don't thats life.

There is a culture whereby financial institutions are expected to consider the best interests other customers. That is mad, because it can at most only be a pretence, but people come to believe it and even rely on it rather than informing themselves as best they can.

Monbrieta, I know people with a contractual right to go back on a tracker were denied that, and they of course should get it back, but it seems to me that many people who gave away their tracker are piggybacking on that to be reinstated.
 
T McGibney said:
"I bought a coat for €300 in a boutique in 2004. I've just twigged Dunnes were selling a better coat for €100. The boutique owner knew that but withheld their best advice. Have I any case against them now?"
Click to expand...

Engine Driver said:
Your sarcastic analogy doesn't help.
Click to expand...

The analogy is perfect and an awful lot less sarcastic than the first reply I typed, but deleted.

Brendan
 
cremeegg

Don't confuse the driver.

What you are saying is that some other people who have no moral entitlement to getting their tracker back, are getting their trackers back.

The driver has no entitlement whatsoever to getting a tracker. End of story.

Brendan
 
Monbretia
It's hardly "jumping on the bandwagon". I'm seeking constructive advice - do I have any sort of an argument for a review. Probably not, judging by your replies. That's all I'm looking to find out. Thanks for your help.

Brendan,
Thanks for sparing me a withering put down.
'...no entitlement whatsoever to getting a tracker. End of story.'
That's all I wanted to know.
 
I can't help but reply to a BOI thread.

If the consumer protection code was being enforced, then you'd have a case (in my opinion)

Read the first 3 principles.

But the consumer protection code is not enforced here, so you have no case!!!
 
A few points:-
  1. As a matter of law, it is well established that, in the context of a normal banker-customer relationship, a lender does not owe any duty to its borrower beyond the terms of the loan agreement. In other words, a lender is under no obligation to place the interests of the borrower above its own interests.
  2. No lender is ever under any obligation to offer any particular loan product to a customer.
  3. The CPC does not create any rights that can be enforced by a borrower against a lender.
  4. It would have been far from clear in 2004 that a tracker loan product, as opposed to a fixed-rate loan product, would have been in the best interests of a borrower. It only appears that a tracker would have been the better option with the benefit of hindsight.
As a practical matter, it is absolutely crystal clear that the OP has no case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top