The time line is like this:
Input 1. --> Customer looks for tracker.
Input 2. --> Lender approves for a tracker, the broker says it is the best deal, a customer stays with the broker
Input 3. --> Broker informs the customer the tracker was no longer available
Input 34. --> Customer asks the broker to contact the bank and ask why, the broker confirms it is not available
Output ---> Customer signs on an SVR because the customer believes he has no other options.
But the bank didn't offer a tracker! It offered an SVR, which the applicant accepted.
Input 1. --> Customer looks for tracker.
Input 2. --> Bank offers an SVR.
Output ---> Customer and bank agree on SVR.
There's no "trap"! It's simple offer and acceptance.
The only logical reason the broker would have amended the application was because:-
1. The bank indicated that it was no longer offering trackers, either generally or to borrowers in the position of the applicant, so it would be rejected; or
2. His client requested him to do so.
Incidentally, the FSO found in favour of the bank in the complaint that you referenced and this was described as a well reasoned decision in the subsequent cold case review!
That doesn't accurately reflect my view as it happens but that's hardly important.your view is that what happens before the contract is signed doesn't matter and only the content's of the signed contract matters.
either the bank, or the broker, or both, lied to me
If the bank was willing to offer me a tracker, then why did the broker passed along the svr loan offer?
Yes.Sarenco, is your point that the trackers were perhaps indeed available to me based on their underlying criteria but the bank was unwilling to offer a tracker?
No it isn't."unwilling" is still about obfuscation and misrepresentation
The Bank didn't change their terms midway. They withdrew a previous offer before it was accepted and made an alternative offer. Perfectly legitimate.the point that todo made, about luring clueless people in, then changing the terms midway.
I can't see any breach of the Code on the facts of this case.1. Are Bank of Ireland in breach of the CPC?
Of course.2. Should the CPC be enforced?
I can't see any breach of the Code on the facts of this case.
Clear breach of the CPC, at no point in time is a rate were the the bank has complete control of the interest rate in the customers best interest, and certainly not when they have a product they were actively selling to other customers which was a tracker.
But you were advised that the tracker was not available to you!the range omitted the available tracker product
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?