Broker amended my mortgage application so I did not apply for a tracker


Frequent Poster
That's a very big "if"! It's only with the benefit of hindsight that you can say it was an "unfavourable" contract from the borrower's perspective.
Frankly, this story just doesn't add up.
Why would the broker amend the form without the applicant's approval? There was absolutely nothing in it for him.
To be honest, I really don't buy the "I don't know what a tracker is" line. .
I'm one of those that didn't realise what a tracker was as I was getting a mortgage in that time period. I was just used to fixed and variable so I stuck with what I knew.

I agree with you the story doesn't add up. Why would you many years later suspect the broker of skullduggery. There is no reason for the broker to amend the form unless the tracker was no longer available. The OP knew he was being offered only a variable or a fixed rate and was happy to take it.


Frequent Poster
Quite a lot of people stuck with what they knew. I remember well trying to explain to people what a tracker was but for many they actually preferred to stay with the traditional type mortgages, devil you know and all that! Now hindsight has proved choices to be wrong but many fixed rates were the wrong choice too at different times.


Registered User
Bronte, what exactly does not add up? My argument is not about me, whether I knew any difference between the trackers and svr, I obviously did not know much, my argument is about disclosure requirements. I do not understand what the lender is required to disclose, what the broker is required to disclose.

With a risk of repeating the same point, it only came to my attention in 2015 because this is when I found out that the BOI still offered trackers in July and pulled them in October. In July 2008 the broker told that the trackers were not available. Now I know this not to be true. The trackers were available to me as I applied for a tracker and was approved for a tracker, in June. Recently I asked the boi compliance department and they confirmed that the tracker product was available to me to October and that it was the broker who amended the application from tracker and svr. This is what an official letter stated. These are my facts.

Another forum member, Sarenco, also argued that the broker did not have any interest in pushing svr instead of the tracker. I think he is probably right.

I think the boi manipulated by first approving customers for trackers so they would not go to another bank and then by offering an svr instead when everything was to be signed. This is perfectly consistent with their overall strategy then to end the product. They obviously have the right to end the product, I have no problem with that but the lender should not have approved me for a tracker in the first place. In June I was approved for a tracker, and when i submitted the remaining docs, at the last moment the boi told the broker to offer an svr. The broker explained to me that it was not available, that svr and trackers were similar products. I asked the broker to request the tracker again and he confirmed it was not available. In 2015 the boi compliance department replied that they had no record of me requesting why it was not given. Contrary to what the broker told me. This is why, on the basis of an official letter from the boi, I concluded that the broker lied. If you prefer to think of brokers in more benevolent terms, then lets say the broker did not lie. Instead, he did not tell the truth.

The story is very simple. The boi wanted clients but would have preferred clients with an svr. At the very least, the broker had to explain that the lender was bargaining, that the trackers were still available on the market, and that svr were inferior to trackers. I do not try to exonerate myself, I accept I was an idiot. An idiot relying on the broker. But please do not insult my intelligence by saying that the broker did not know the difference between trackers and svr, or that the trackers were no longer available.

I do not want to get anything from the lender. I switched from the boi. I only wanted to know how it is not a violation of CPC 2006, article 30, when a lender omits a product from the range offered when such product is available to a customer, available to a lender, a customer applied for it and was already approved for it. And how exactly a customer is expected to ask the lender for details if the broker confirms they asked the lender and the lender confirms the broker never asked the lender?

This is what does not add up to me. If others know about disclosure requirements, I would appreciate your thoughts.