Central Bank Before Oireachtas Finance Committee tomorrow, Tuesday, at 10 am.

S

SaySomething

Registered User
Messages
658
Update: The Committee schedule for this week has this hearing marked for 10am tomorrow in Committee Room 2


I've received correspondence from the Finance Committee confirming that the Central Bank will present to them on the Tracker Mortgage Investigation once again on the 4th of April next.

That gives us 2 weeks to make submissions to the committee on the progress issues, query why the Central Bank have not set deadlines, and ask why the scope/guidelines of the investigation have not been made public.

You can contact the Finance Committee by emailing fincom@oireachtas.ie

I realise it's 3 weeks away but you'll need to give the committee staff enough time to distribute your correspondence to the members.

It's also worth contacting your local TD and asking them to attend the committee meeting on your behalf.

To be honest the turnout for the last 2 tracker-related presentations have been extremely poor from the committee members and Oireachtas representatives. Okay, I'll reword that, disgraceful, from public representatives in my opinion who are meant to be chasing this down on our behalf.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi SS

Well spotted. Although the attendance was poor, the media coverage was good.

Those affected should put pressure on their FG TDs in particular to attend. They have been conspicuous by their non-contribution to mortgage related issues.

Brendan
 
Are there key questions we should ask our representative s to ask? I plan on emailing regularly up to Apr 4th.
 
The key Questions I want the CB to answer include;

Failure of Banks to provide info and real updates for affected customers on review.

Timescale for completion of review is established and enforced by CB with penalties for Banks

Terms of Reference and process for review to be published by CB. This to include detailed update report on each Bank.

All Banks to be compelled to detail their own review process and issue public monthly report on websites and to Finance Committee.

All affected to contact all Committee member please.
 
Last edited:
I rang Ulster Bank tracker helpline yesterday followed by Central Bank and The ombudsman who had put our case on hold one year ago to the day to be included in the review. None of these organisations could even tell me if our case has been included. The stress that this process has caused me and my family is immense. I'm just too worn out to detail any specifics, at the end of my tether. Simply being told wait and see by all three is not good enough. I have had zero information on this process from any of them.

Now that rant is over, some questions.

Accounts which had been identified as being likely to be impacted through complaints to the banks and ombudsman prior to the review appear to be left to the end of the process. True or false?

If the above is true, then why?

if one of the requirements of the review is a customer helpline why is that helpline allowed to be a scripted conversation that offers no help whatsoever.

Where cases on contractual fraud are identified will legal action be taken?

Do the Central Bank see this process ending and when?

Is their any realisation that this is effecting people's lives and that everyday that goes by is another day of stress and worry for thousands of people?

I'll think of some more when my head stops pounding. Didn't get much sleep last night after my fruitless engagement with powers that be.
 
Here are some key questions

1) Will you publish the guidelines you gave to the banks?
2) Each bank designed its own scheme. Have you approved the scheme for each bank by now?
2a) Please gives some examples of where you or your consultants changed the scheme proposed by the bank.
3) When an affected customer is identified, why is the refund of overcharged interest not calculated and refunded immediately? We accept it might take some time to design, approve and calculate the compensation.
4) Will the lenders be told to write to everyone who had a tracker who no longer has a tracker who has been identified as not losing their tracker unfairly? There are thousands of people out there waiting for letters. They should be told that the bank's view is that they are not getting their trackers back. This will allow them to appeal?
 
Hi SaySomething,

Thanks for heads up I have contacted separately my two government TDs with a request to attend meeting on my behalf and ask relevant questions (I borrowed some of the above questions as relevant to my situation also)

Thanks,
BW
 
standard reply from my Fine Gael TD... Seems she will not be attending.

"I have sought an answer for these questions from the Department of Finance and have forwarded them to my Fine Gael colleagues who sit on the Finance Committee and asked them to raise them on your behalf during the upcoming Committee meeting with Central Bank officials.

I will get back to once once I receive a response."
 
Who are the TDs and Senators on the committee?
I emailed all my constituency TDs yesterday but no response as yet! And Frances Fitzgerald is my TD!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Suggest you contact most active and prominent members on this issue eg John McGuinness Pearse Doherty Michael McGrath

Email is john.mcguinness@oireachtas.ie etc.
See sumnary of key issues for members to put to CB above.

Check out Oireachtas Finance Committee for full membership transcrips if previous tracker meetings etc.
 
I am not sure that there is much point in contacting the active members of the Committee. They are well briefed on the issue.

It's more important to get the other TDs to sit up and take notice. In particular, the FG members of the Finance Committee. But they will ignore you if you are not in their constituency.

Brendan
 
Would suggest that pre March 2006 AIB customers raise issue of being denied Tracker based on the meaning of "variable" in Clause 3.2 of the Terms and Conditions. Tracker variable rate is the only rate
outlined and described in the letters of Offer/Terms and Conditions. How can AIB justify interpreting the word "variable" in Clause 3.2 as SVR?? A whole cohort of customers involved in these "lifetime" Tracker mortgages.
 
Hi

Clause 3.5 states that the variable rate is subject to the provisions of the letter of offer

If letter of offer defines mortgage as a tracker mortgage with a rate of X% above Ecb then I can't see how AIB haven't returned those of us affected to our tracker mortgages

Still trying to find out from AIB when review of these mortgages will be completed

If unsuccessful then will reactivate my FSO case
 
Today's CB statement doesn't change much for people still waiting to get their Trackers back. Would seem that AIB are ignoring most of the guidelines. All AIB customers with pre March 2006
contracts had their contractual rights broken.....Tracker "for the lifetime of the loan"....invite to "fix at any time"..... the infamous Clause 3.2. Important
that this is highlighted at the Oireachtas Meeting next week.
 
Finance Committee Meeting with Governor Philip Lane on 4th of April. We must keep up the momentum. Send a brief summary of your situation and some questions. It was good to get the Central
Bank Framework but the banks are not abiding by those guidelines. AIB are holding customers with pre March 2006 contracts to ransom over Clause 3.2. Note what the guidelines said about influencing factors and the broader context....promotional data, meetings in banks, letters of facility etc. Yet AIB are withholding Trackers from a cohort of people based on the meaning of "variable" in Clause 3.2. With reference to the CB Framework, Tracker variable rate is the only rate that is set out clearly in the pre March 2006 mortgage documents. Yet we are expected to believe that the word "variable" in Clause 3.2 means SVR??? It suited AIB to take advantage of its customers. Is this not a perfect example of dual meaning that has confused the customer......the Central Bank Framework makes it very clear that a Bank must engage with a customer if "dual meaning" is a factor in a case. AIB are disregarding the guidelines. Does anyone know if Phase 2 is finished at AIB? Finally, we must not forget that our Tracker loans were for the "lifetime" of the loan and we had the right to fix at "anytime" for a fee of €63!!!!...........all are influencing factors. The Framework makes it very clear that "influencing factors" are as significant as the contractual issues. Hope Padraig Kissane will soon start his public meetings again!
 
Agree 100%

Aib pulling a fast one with the claim about SVR

Hopefully the central bank can stand up to Aib

And hopefully some one will ask the question to Governor Lane on Tuesday
 
Maggiec, i like this term dual meaning. My issue is with the term "discounted tracker". I got what I thought was ecb + 0.8 discounted to 0.6 for a Year then returned to 0.8 but it transpires that all of a sudden it means 0.8 discounted to 0.6 for a Year then whatever we fancy after. That in my mind is a One year tracker not a discounted tracker. Who would take out a One year tracker in their right mind ?????

Yes, looking forward to PKs next public meeting. Bring it on.
 
This 'dual meaning' also applies to KBC.

The use of the term 'Lenders prevailing variable rate' in both the tracker and fixed rate contracts cannot be
construed as the SVR (Standard Variable Rate) when it suits them!

My understanding of this review process is that the banks do their own review overseen by an independent third party being paid for by the same bank.
How independent can that be?

As far as I am concerned this process is little more than a rubber stamping exercise.

The Central Bank needs to get much more active instead of standing on the side line allowing the banks to review themselves.

People need to be be proactive with their own cases.

"Hoping" is for when you are at the church!
 
When the Tracker facility was launched by AIB from 2002/2003 onwards, the Bank essentially introduced a second "variable" onto the mortgage market. AIB described the Tracker variable rate as follows
“A Tracker Rate mortgage is a variable rate product that provides customers with certainty on their margin over the European Central Bank (ECB) rate for the life of the loan. The Tracker rate incorporates a set percentage above the ECB rate and the Tracker Mortgage will “track” changes in that rate. While the overall rate will move in line with the ECB rate, the customer’s margin will remain the same. More customers are opting for Tracker rates given the certainty on the margin it offers them, coupled with the flexibility to switch to a fixed rate at any time”. The highlighted conditions formed the basis of all pre March 2006 Tracker mortgage contracts and consequently, all Trackers should have been restored at the end of fixed periods (we shouldn't even be involved in this review!)
The Clause 3.2 scenario is a farce. The variable that is set out clearly in the contract (CBI Framework identified this as a crucial factor) is Tracker variable. Logically, how could "variable" in Clause 3.2 mean SVR when SVR has no frame of reference in the whole of the mortgage contract?? AIB are chancing their arm and getting away with it to date. Hopefully, there may be some clarity on these issues on the 4th of April. I have forwarded direct questions and encourage others to do the same. AIB have brushed aside the CBI Framework guidelines i.e. the unacceptability of "dual meaning" (as in Clause 3.2) and "influencing factors" as in all aspects of the mortgage agreement. AIB are depriving hundreds of people of their Tracker rate, based on one word (with dual meaning) in one clause!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top