Bank of Ireland BoI Staff on fixed rates who are not getting their trackers back

TMH2017

Frequent Poster
Messages
57
I have moved these threads from the huge Bank of Ireland thread to focus and understand this very particular issue - Brendan


Just off phone from helpline - am BOI staff & I was never on tracker but was on 2 year staff fixed from jan 07 to jan 09 (drew down on variable in Dec 06) with expectation to move to tracker thereafter, this was confirmed in email to me from BOI mortgages (during 08 - that I would automatically move to a Tracker) and in insite communication/ letter in Oct 08 which was subsequently withdrawn. Have been through the BOI complaints process and FSO in 13/14 but got no joy per strict legal definition of underlying mortgage MFA - not sure where I stand now - per helpline I am not part of batch of letters going to staff this week and as was never on tracker seems not to be impacted (did say process still ongoing till end of year etc. etc. ) and advised to resend complaint/argument to tracker email address which I will obviously do - anyone else in same (rather frustrating) boat ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pewter

Registered User
Messages
17
Hi TMH2017. I'm very similar to yourself. I drew down my mortgage in late 2006. I was in contact with the Staff Mortgage team and they told me that the 2 year fixed rate was on the way. It sounded like a good deal and I planned to get on it so I didn't pay much attention to what I was on initially. As it happened it was the variable. A short few weeks later I got on the 3.95% two year fixed rate.

I got confirmation today that I'm not in the 6,000. I'm struggling to take it in given the hope that came from Francesca McDonagh last week. It's not safe to extrapolate from one, but I'm getting the sense from other posts here that they are limiting it to those who were on a tracker.

Sarenco, I think you've nailed it regarding expectations. The key thing is that there was so much that conspired to give the very reasonable expectation that those of us on the 3.95% rate were going to roll onto the tracker. Given it's so long ago it was kind of hard as an individual to nail that sense of expectation but when you read the community posts here it all starts to piece back together again. And that's core to this - it was a relatively small community and we informed each other.

As 2008 progressed, it became obvious that a tracker would be a good thing to be on. The 2 year rate only had a couple of months to run and it wouldn't have been a huge cost to break out of it to get on to a tracker . But so many things indicated that we didn't need to
What caused that expectation?
1. The MFA for the fixed product. I've never worked on the mortgage side of things so my natural action was to look at the MFA of the product I was on. All it said about the end of the term related to trackers. "If the loan is to be converted to a tracker mortgage loan, I agree that the interest rate applicable to the loan is a variable interest rate and may vary upwards or downwards". There was nothing about a variable rate (which can also go up or down). The reasonable assumption was that the tracker was the default.

2. We knew it was practice to offer trackers for those coming off fixed rates in general (this was published in 2004)
"To protect our existing mortgage book, a further decision has now been taken to offer ALL customers coming off the DVR or Fixed rate product the Tracker option of ECB+ 1.3% regardless of when they drew down their mortgage ". That not something I claim to have read at the time, but informed the general view on practice of anyone you spoke to.

3. As many staff are saying here, they saw on the system that their mortgage would roll on to trackers.

4. TMH2017, it's very interesting that you say that the mortgage business emailed you in 2008 to say that that was what you would roll on to. That should be very strong for you but also for all of us as indicative of what was being told (and shared in the community).

5. Finally, there was the publication on insite the day before the tracker closed which was so specific... "Staff who are currently on Staff 2-year fixed rate - currently 3.95% - will roll to ECB +0.75% with no BIK implications as per their original signed mortgage agreement at the end of their 2-year fixed period". I took that as a statement of fact... not an encouragement to go looking at my original signed mortgage agreement. I think that's how 99.9% of people would have read it. And surely that's how it was intended. If they meant a subset surely they would have said "Certain holders of the 2 year-fixed rate will roll on IF their original signed mortgage agreement indicated so"

Sorry to drone on but it's only in adding all of the pieces that you get a sense of the reasonable expectation.

In fact, when the Bank wrote out to tell us we were not getting it they said "A communication was issued on Insite on the 9th of October indicating that the Tracker Mortgage would be available on roll over- this preceded our final assessment of our withdrawal from Tracker Mortgages and represented the most accurate information available at the time"
ISN'T THAT THE WHOLE POINT? That was the most accurate information available to all of us. That's why we stayed on the fixed rates. Were we expected to know more than the Mortgage business?

I was so pleased that John McGuinness raised the insite note at the Oireachtas meeting. He said it was a letter (rather than a posting on insite) but he was so precise..a promise of a +.75% tracker to those on the 3.95% rate. I was shocked that Liam McLoughlin didn't know about it and if he didn't then he has been so badly briefed given that it's so central to so many of our complaints.

Clearly Francesca McDonagh doesn't know about it either because if she does, then I for one feel like a fool to have taken hope from her words about culture last week - and the 6000 really only came about it because they were forced into it by the Central Bank.

I'm doing everything I can to get my public representatives to make sure that John McGuinness follows up the questioning. I think everyone here in the same boat should do the same.
 

Sarenco

Frequent Poster
Messages
5,494
And therein lies the problem with substituting an imagined view of the parties' expectations when they entered into a contract for what is actually written in the contract itself - where do you draw the line?

Why are Pewster's expectations any less legitimate that the expectations of some of his fellow BOI staffers?

Should a borrower that consciously and deliberately switched from a tracker to a (discounted staff) variable rate before fixing have a greater expectation that they would subsequently roll to a tracker after their fixed term than a colleague that started on a (discounted staff) variable rate?

I can't see any logical reason why one cohort of such borrowers would have a greater expectation than the other.

If I was in your shoes, I would write to the Central Bank (copying the Chairman of the Finance Committee) with a request that they publish their challenges to the bank and explain why the expectations of one cohort of borrowers trump the expectations of another.
 

Pewter

Registered User
Messages
17
@TMH2017
Just one addition. I think there's a possibility that there may have been things that don't apply to us that got those who had been on a tracker over the line. Perhaps there was something in their original offer, or perhaps there was a challenge that they weren't warned enough of the consequences of moving off it.

I think our case stands on it's own. I think it's a simply that the Bank in 2008 believed that the two year rate had the contractual right to roll over (I'd like to see the offer letter for those who started on it) and throughout 2007 and 2008 they acted in a way that gave us the expectation that we'd roll on to it. That's why they worded the MFA as it was, set the contracts on the system to roll to trackers, had help line people saying it would roll over, and on October 9th 2008 stated the fact on insite.

I think then later in 2008 when they were looking at ways to reduce the numbers on trackers, they found a way out to exclude those who had transferred onto the two year rate by catching us on original documentation...something that you'd really need to be quite knowledgable on to understand. They did this and ignored the expectations that they had created in 2007 and 2008, and which we would have been exposed to by working in the bank, which had led us to remain on the two year rate rather than switch on to a tracker earlier in 2008.
 

TMH2017

Frequent Poster
Messages
57
@Pewter only aspect I can think of is whether they are excluding cases like us on basis of the fact that we were never on a tracker. If you read thru the Central Bank framework document and 3.21 (Scope) , it specifically talks about mortgages which were on tracker or had contractual rights/options (not sure what "options" means) of same and 3.31 (Segmentation) talks about Regulatory Framework (Consumer Protection etc.) - this, I think, was the Central Bank argument which (eventually) got the 1800/2000 staff over the line (i.e. they did not have strict contractual right but a right in terms of consumer protection etc., if you recall in Oct 08 they used the MFA argument to prevent people taking on the tracker option on roll-over) - perhaps the Bank are looking at a narrow interpretation of the framework document to exclude cases like ours as we were all on same product with same promises/expectations ?

When they said your case was not included - did they give any rationale ? not sure if people on phone line know much/anything on detail of accounts etc. ? I just got a holding email after I chased up with them on Friday (by email).
 

TMH2017

Frequent Poster
Messages
57
unfortunately yes ,imagine staff are working on getting refunds or letters saying u are not impacted out rather than identifying new cases though,
looking at example 3 in central bank (pg. 10 of their report) and decision by KBC in terms of 650 PDH's very little difference vs. mine and others BOI situations which are deemed not impacted other than what rate you started out on day 1.
[seems like my posts were moved to the KBC thread for some reason?]
 

Pewter

Registered User
Messages
17
@Hopeful7 and TMH2017
I really didn't like the look of the report today. Particularly the line about "vast majority of cases now identified".
I'm really struggling to see how BoI has been allowed to break down a fairly clear cut group (those on the two year mortgage who the Bank itself understood to have the right to roll on to a tracker and communicated same to us) into different subsets depending on what each
mortgage holder had been on previously and therefore minimise the problem. It's "divide and conquer". It's cynical.

I so hope that John McGuinness doesn't drop the ball on what he initially raised with LMcL. I hope the bank has now provided him with insite statement (as they said they would at the Oireachtas committee). I hope he will ask them why aren't they honouring it. I hope he's aware that when they rowed back on it months later they said that it was based on "the best information available at the time". I hope he lands with them that that was the whole point. .. that was the belief we all had, it was a belief created by the bank and was what stopped us breaking out in 2008. We've got to do everything we can to make that happen by going through Paraic and/or whatever avenues we have to get to the committee, the Central Bank and the press. I'm probably repeating myself here from previous posts so sorry about that but I really am beginning to fear that BoI is going to get away with this cohort and won't be held accountable for it.
 

Pewter

Registered User
Messages
17
@TMH2017 @Hopeful7
So that was a very strong performance from Pearse Doherty and Michael McGrath last night. I'm really grateful that both of them had so clearly and genuinely taken up the issue and didn't let John O'Beirne off the hook when he spoke about the majority of the group having been sorted.

I got quite angry at the way John tried to characterise the insite article as if it was something that was mostly quite clear (in the Bank's favour) but had an element that caused some confusion. That just wasn't the case. The article set out what we all believed in 2008 and the basis on which we all acted when the tracker was still available. A different interpretation was later applied to support closing the tracker off to us.

1. The article and John's interpretation (October 2008)
I know that the article has been included elsewhere on these posts but it's useful to post it here again.

Briefly they said in the article said that the tracker was closing the next day to new business and the only people who would be entitled to benefit from the rate were those who were a) already on it and b) a group who would roll to it (which it said it would expand upon later on the article). Note that John kept on using the language "roll back to" in his performance at the committee perpetuating the bank's line to date of "you must have been on a tracker to be remediated". Nowhere is the term "roll back" used in the communication. It's "roll to". That sounds like splitting hairs but roll back suggests it's a right conferred from the product you were on previously (the banks interpretation), and roll to which suggests a right conferred from the product you're currently on (as we interpreted).

In the section where they expanded on group b), they explained it as being those who were on the Two Year 3.95% rate. Here's the line again:

Staff who are currently on staff 2-year fixed rate - currently 3.95% - will roll to ECB +0.75% with no BIK implications as per their original signed mortgage agreement at the end of their 2-year fixed period. Staff will received notification 30 days prior to the end of their fixed rate term. This notification will also offer a range of fixed and variable rate products. If you do not respond to this notification, your account will automatically default to the Staff Tracker ECB + 0.75%.

As Michael McGrath pointed out, no reasonable reader of the document could have read this to mean that only a subset of those on the two year rate would roll on (and specifically that it depended on previously having been on a tracker).

John said later in the submission that they accepted that this communication was "confusing to those who had previously been on a tracker" and hence they were included. How would this have been more confusing to those who had previously been on a tracker than those who had not been? We were all in the same boat. We were on a product which we thought was rolling to a tracker. We all read it the same way.

2. The suggested loophole - MFA's and Original letters of offer.
John kept on referring to the piece that would have made it clear to us that it was only a subset of those on the 3.95% rate and that's the "as per their original signed mortgage agreement" piece. I certainly didn't read that as a qualification that I needed to check. I read it simply as a statement of fact....something to explain to readers of the notification who were on rates other than the tracker or the 2-year rate why they weren't getting a tracker. John suggests that it should have prompted us to go looking at documentation and also required us to know that the article was referring to the letter of offer only and that the MFA of the two year product (which refers to rolling to a tracker) doesn't qualify as a mortgage agreement.

Funnily enough, in a later part of the hearing, when explaining where the 6,000 new cases came from, John and Francesca referred to the average number of products someone might be on over the life of their mortgage (6) and the confusion that this combination of 6 MFAs and one letter of offer might cause. Therefore they brought people in because of that confusion. Why did that not apply here?

And the one thing that I really don't understand is, if the Bank genuinely meant that it was all about the letter of offer, why on earth would you specify the Two year rate in the insite article when you know that people came from all sorts of other products to get on to it with all types of original letters of offer?

As I've said elsewhere, I firmly believe that it was the intention that the staff two year would roll onto a tracker as was the sales practice for all fixed rates since 2004 and that after the closure, someone found a legally supported argument to reduce the amount of trackers using the "original letter of offer" argument regardless of the expectation that had been created in 2007 and 2008.

3. Subsequent clarification (in later 2008)
John said that the issue was cleared up three weeks later. I don't remember an announcement to that effect and certainly not within 3 weeks? Does anyone else? I clearly remember the letter I received that December when my two years was coming to a close telling me that I wasn't getting the tracker. That was at least 7 weeks later and it was like a hammer blow.

The thing is, the language in that letter didn't use the argument of language nuance. It said that the piece about the 2 year mortgage was based on "the best information available at the time". And (as I've said before), that was the whole point. It was the best information we all had.

Also, crucially, John declined to inform the committee that the insite announcement was made on the day before the tracker closed (and there were many who acted on that day) and the suggested clarifications were a long time after the closure.

4. Who's in now and who's not based on December 2017 criteria
I think (and I can only guess) that this is what has happened.
I believe the Central Bank led with the argument that those who had ever been on a tracker should have the right to go back to it. The Bank has acceded to this knowing that this applies to the majority of those who had been on the 2 year rate and that this would take the edge of the insite communication issue (in the same way that John attempted to tell Pearse that the cohort Pearse was talking about had been remediated). I don't believe it has shared the insite communication with the Central Bank in any meaningful way.

Where to next?
I hope Francesca was genuine in saying she will look at this again. She certainly came across as being genuine. However I was really disappointed that she didn't seem to know about this. This was a communication that had been raised by John McGuinness at the Bank's last appearance so shouldn't she have known all about it and the rationale the bank has used? John O'Beirne clearly knew that a decision had been made to exclude a number of us and surely she should have been briefed on it?

I hope that she hadn't been briefed, and when she's presented with the facts, she makes the right decision.

If she is genuine, she will rule in our favour, and clarify it immediately. This isn't a complex one needing case by case investigations. Either you're honouring the statement, or you're not.

It would be great if those affected by this would affirm that here or through the other channels. Pearse Doherty and Michael McGrath have served us really well here and we shouldn't let it fade out.


Attached note from 2008:
 

Attachments

Sarenco

Frequent Poster
Messages
5,494
The article set out what we all believed in 2008 and the basis on which we all acted when the tracker was still available.
Is that factually correct? I understood (no doubt mistakenly) that the impacted staffers opted for the discounted fixed rate back in 2006/07 - long before the 2008 communications.

FWIW, I agree with you that the distinctions now being drawn between different cohorts of BOI staffers are entirely arbitrary. Mind you, a lot of the positions now being adopted by the Central Bank on tracker related issues seem entirely arbitrary to me.
 

Pewter

Registered User
Messages
17
Hi there. You understand correctly... we went on the fixed rate back in 2006. And I personally don't claim that I took the fixed rate out because I believed in 2006 that it gave me the right to go to a tracker. I don't claim to have fully recognised the benefit/value of a tracker back in 2006 ( I don't think the bank did either back then or it wouldn't have sold them!).

What I'm referring to was what influenced our actions in 2008. I definitely knew in the summer of 2008 that a tracker had become a very very good thing to be on and I would have broken out of my fixed rate but I felt I didn't have to. The received knowledge internally was that the fixed rate was going to roll on to a tracker. The documentation (MFA) on the two year rate spoke about rolling on to a tracker (with no mention of a variable). When you look at other posts on here you can see other evidence that people had (e.g. their product was down on the system to roll to a tracker only to be changed subsequently). All of these things together and what people told each other combined to give that comfort.

The official insite posting in October 2008 simply confirmed that general understanding. The content of that note was a symptom of what was generally being communicated internally.

It was later (in December) that the Bank found a legal route to change its mind.

Does that make sense?
 

TMH2017

Frequent Poster
Messages
57
It does to me. It boils down to the same product, the same communication and the same expectations but 2 groups treated differently on a technicality which had no influence on the particular facts in 2008. If the new CEO is true to her "customer centric" ethos and giving customers the benefit of doubt in such circumstances then this issue should be sorted. If not then this is just waffle and BOI will be up against Pearse & Micheal at the finance committee and negative press etc.
 

Sarenco

Frequent Poster
Messages
5,494
Hi Pewter

Thanks for that - yes, that makes perfect sense.

In fact, it's the first cogent argument that I've read on here why any BOI staffers should have been entitled to a tracker.

I might rephrase your argument as follows:-

"Given your knowledge of the residential mortgage market, you knew (or at least strongly suspected) in the summer/autumn of 2008 that the withdrawal of low margin trackers as an option for new borrowers (or for existing borrowers coming off fixed rates) was imminent. If it wasn't for the misrepresentation or ambiguity in that original October 2008 memo, as to your contractual position, you would have opted to break out of your fixed rate in order to roll to a tracker. However, you didn't because you were led to believe that you would roll to a tracker on expiry of your fixed term in any event".

Does that sound about right?

It's a perfectly plausible argument and if that's the reason that some staffers are being given trackers there is no logical reason why you should be treated any differently.

The fact that some staffers had a tracker at some point in the past is not a logical distinction. If anything, the fact that you did not consciously and deliberately switch from a tracker to a discounted staff variable rate before fixing should enhance, not detract, from your case.

Having said that, playing devils advocate, I think your argument faces two key problems:-
  • Breaking out of fixed rate contract in October 2008 would have been prohibitively expensive; and
  • The wording of the relevant MFAs that others have posted on here did not contain a right to roll to a tracker rate on expiry of (or on breaking) a fixed term.
The same objections could, of course, be raised in relation to other staffers that consciously switched off their trackers to a discounted staff variable rate before fixing.

The difference between the two cohorts, it seems to me, is nothing more than good PR.
 
Last edited:

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
37,836
Can I check and summarise my understanding of this?

If I understand you correctly Pewter...
You took out a non-tracker variable rate mortgage back in 2006.
You did not then appreciate the value of tracker mortgages.
But you didn't think much about it as you were planning to fix for two years, as soon as the new product was launched.
When the new two year fixed product came out, you fixed.
You never had a tracker mortgage.
Your contract did not give you a right to a tracker mortgage.

But in October 2008, the value of tracker mortgages dawned on you and on the bank.
You would have broken out of your fixed rate, paid the penalty and availed of the tracker rate.
But you understood that the practice in the bank was for all fixed rate mortgage to move onto trackers, irrespective of the original contracts.
Then the Insite memo confirmed this in your opinion.


Is that right?

Brendan
 
Last edited:

TMH2017

Frequent Poster
Messages
57
from my own perspective the banks own mortgage system had all on the 2 year fixed product switching to the staff tracker (not just those who had previously been on a tracker - the arbitrary distinction the bank is using now), that was the convention/expectation of everyone on the product from day 1 of the fixed rate period which was copper fastened by the oct 08 communication , once the value differential between trackers and other products became evident in q4 08, the bank changed the internal system so that all would roll to svr
agree the same arguments for & against can be made but these would apply to all on that fixed rate product not just a subset of same
 

numbersman

Registered User
Messages
5
Good to see the momentum here. We drew down in 2006 on 1 yr fixed new business rate (discounted) and then moved onto the 2 year fixed rate (in 2007) until 2009. Was never on variable before then. Queried the lack of availability of the tracker with HR in 2009 and they insisted it was not available (don't have access to mail now). However, past practice and the staff notice set the expectation for us that we would have it as an option. We left BOI in 2016 after selling our house.

BOI are saying that we are not deemed impacted up until now. SAR requested and our file is under review by BOI at present after requesting this.
 

numbersman

Registered User
Messages
5
.........and this rates table (for retail non-staff customers) seems to imply that Fixed rates only rolled to tracker rates (May 2008). There is no line for Fixed Rate rolling to SVR.....



Source link: Finfacts.ie
 

Pewter

Registered User
Messages
17
@Sarenco and @Brendan Burgess

Hi Brendan. Thanks for starting this. It really helps. And good challenges from you and Sarenco.

Sarenco, your summary is almost right. However, it wasn't the October 08 article that triggered an awareness. It was earlier in 2008 that I considered whether I should switch. It wouldn't have actually cost that much as my fixed period was up in December but money was relatively tight so I didn't want to do it if I didn't need to. I came to the conclusion that I didn't have to (I'll expand on how I came to that conclusion below). The subsequent memo on October 9 simply confirmed my belief that the product would roll onto a tracker. I think it's part of the evidence that the belief.

Brendan, you're right to say in your summary that, as it turns out, I actually didn't have a contractual right. If I had, I'd have been remediated a year ago and I wouldn't be here. However I don't think the summary gets across that I believed in 2008 that rolling on to the tracker was an integral part of the two year product. Looking back, I wish I had pulled out every bit of documentation and nailed it down and made sure that I had a contractual right. Although I'm not a banker (I worked on the Life assurance side) I'm a financial professional and perhaps I was naive but the evidence in front of me led me to believe that I'd roll on. There was a lot that suggested it would. No one piece stands up on its own (and taken on their own they can appear weak), but its the totality that builds the picture.

1. The received knowledge
I'm conscious that this can seem the weakest, but when you work in the Bank, you believe you get the facts by talking to colleagues who are in the relevant areas. You can get richer information that way but you don't have an official record - you're not on a recorded line. So in 2008 I would have been discussing with colleagues my thoughts about switching. The common response was "the fixed product automatically rolls to the tracker".
It seems ridiculous now to put faith in this but these were people who worked on the Bank side. And there is a lot of evidence on here about where that "received knowledge came from".
- The sales announcement in 2004 that all fixed rates would be offered a tracker automatically
- The number of people who saw their fixed product set up to roll on to a tracker (as per TMH2017's note)
- The general tenor coming from the staff mortgage department.
- Info like numbersman has posted ( I never saw that myself but it supports what I would have been hearing from bank staff).


2. The MFA
Unless you are completely familiar with mortgages, I think it's reasonable to look at the documentation relating to the product you're on (not the one that you originally went on...which has Francesca said on Tuesday, was on average 6 products ago). That's where I looked.

An MFA is a short 2 letter document and talks about a limited number of things . It sets out the term of the fixed period, the rate, the info about breaking out and then there were three elements of small print (I've included these clauses as an attachment)
1. What would happen if I left the Bank (it was a staff product)
2. What happens after the two years is up: The only product it talked about was a tracker. There was no mention of a variable rate. Sarenco, you're right that it wasn't the cast iron "you're guaranteed to the right to a tracker" that I'd like to see now. It's just the fact that it reinforced everything I was hearing about the default product being a tracker.
3. A statement that everything else was as per the original agreement: Its that last line that the Bank keeps quoting now as being the defence. Now given that the rate had been covered in the MFA and what happens at the end, I think it was reasonable to assume that the 3rd line was referring to all of the other conditions around a mortgage such as obligations of the borrower (life insurance, home insurance etc), what happens in the event of default etc. The things that you wouldn't expect to have changed.

3. The Insite article on October 9
So finally the Bank published the insite article the day before trackers closed. I won't go over my points in earlier posts except to say that this is probably the most compelling piece of evidence that the two year product was to default to a tracker and that everything that had informed my view emanated from official policy.

I can't be 100% sure but my memory and that of many colleagues was that the article was published around lunchtime on the 9th and there was a short window to act. I certainly would have if it hadn't been so clear that the two year product was definitely going to roll to tracker. I've heard that many people who were on the variable rate got in taxis and signed MFAs to go on to tracker that day (but there's a chance that they were on the inside track). However, even if that window hadn't existed (i.e. despite my memory, it doesn't seem to make sense that the Bank would have left a window) I believe it was a confirmation of the policy.


Brendan, when I look back at it, your piece probably does summarise what I'm saying. I think you need the colour though to convey where the expectation may have come from in the absence of black and white contractual rights. And everything here hinges on whether it was a reasonable expectation created by the bank.
 

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
37,836
Pewter

Thanks for that detailed, and well documented, explanation.

Clearly your contract gave you no right to a tracker or no expectation of a tracker.
The MFA doesn't either.
upload_2018-2-1_21-29-43.png

That is very much a conditional. Some loans had a right to move to a tracker. Some didn't. You can't just ignore the "if..."

You had an expectation of a tracker. For me, that would not be enough.

If I were the Ombudsman, I would ask the question "Did you lose out as a result of the Bank of Ireland misleading you?"

Again, this is clear and logical and I don't think that you should have misunderstood it.
upload_2018-2-1_21-33-34.png


"those rolling to ECB +.75% as per their original signed mortgage"

upload_2018-2-1_21-35-8.png

Again, it's as per their "original signed mortgage agreement"

That is clearly referring to people who had the right to a tracker in their mortgage agreement.


If Bank of Ireland misled a customer and that customer acted or failed to act based on that information, then the customer should be given the advantage.

But I just don't see that here, try as I might.

I have not seen the MFA which those who were on trackers before fixing signed. But it would seem on the face of it that they are in an entirely different category to those of you who were never on trackers.

Having said all that, I agreed with the FSO's decision in another staff tracker case, and BoI gave them back their tracker anyway.

So, appeal it to the Independent Appeals Panel, if you are allowed or to the FSO, if you are not.

Brendan
 

Pewter

Registered User
Messages
17
Hi Brendan
I have to say you’re the only person that I’ve talked to who has seen that Insite article and took it to unambiguously mean that it only applied to a subset of those on the two year rate.

However as you say, there’s no point in you and me having an argument about it. We won’t decide it here.
 
Top