Central Bank review of trackers for other banks

Gerard123

Frequent Poster
Messages
294
Does anyone know how this review will work? Will there be an opportunity for consumers to input to it or is simply between the Central Bank and the various Institutions?

Also how will the Central Bank view decisions of the Ombudsman in cases where the decisions do not appear logical. Will the Central Bank ignore any decisions and look at the situation afresh?

Thanks.
 
R

Rebuttal

Guest
I believe the C.B.I. are currently conducting a full review of all banks operating in Ireland during the boom/bust period, from a consumer protection perspective, this would of course include a review of all tracker mortgages. The C.B.I. are trying to establish whether there were systematic breaches of the Consumer Credit Act 1995, Consumer Protection Act 2007, CCMA, EC ( licensing and supervision of credit institutions ) regulations 1992 etc.
 

Gerard123

Frequent Poster
Messages
294
Thanks for the info.

Has anyone any insight, perhaps as a result of the PTSB tracker situation? Did PTSB customers interact with the Central Bank, etc?
 

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
37,457
Statement from the Central Bank

Statement on examination of tracker mortgage-related issues
2 October 2015
The Central Bank has embarked on a broader examination of tracker mortgage-related issues covering, among other things, transparency of communications with and contractual rights of tracker mortgage borrowers.

The fair treatment of tracker mortgage borrowers has been a key supervisory and policy focus for the Central Bank over the past number of years. Our consumer protection framework requires all lenders to act in their consumers’ best interests and, in particular, requires lenders to disclose material information to consumers to enable them to make informed decisions. For those borrowers who are in mortgage arrears, the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears restricts lenders from requiring a borrower to change to another mortgage rate type, other than in instances where no other option is appropriate or sustainable.

In line with our risk-based approach to supervision, our engagement with lenders has been intrusive in relation to lenders’ treatment of tracker mortgage borrowers. Since 2010, we have identified and pursued a number of lender-specific issues in relation to transparency for borrowers who opted to switch from their tracker rates or who had the right to revert to a tracker rate at the end of a fixed rate period. This has resulted in the use of supervisory powers, including the Administrative Sanctions Procedure, redress and compensation schemes for those borrowers who suffered detriment or loss as a result of their lenders’ practices.

Notwithstanding the considerable work undertaken to ensure consumers are appropriately protected, we remain concerned that there may be other tracker-related issues which could be impacting on consumers across the system. In this regard, we are currently engaging closely with a number of lenders on points of concern relating to their ability to demonstrate that they have acted in the best interests of their tracker mortgage customers, with a number of lenders currently undertaking their own internal reviews. We have also been engaging with consumer groups as well as the Financial Services Ombudsman to help inform our work. In addition, we have decided that a broader examination of tracker-related issues is warranted. We havebeen developing an appropriate methodology for such an examination in order to ensure that all issues will have been addressed by such a review We have written to all lenders notifying them of our intention to conduct such a review.
 

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
37,457
I met with the Central Bank yesterday:


1)They wanted to know of any systemic issues which they should look into. They wanted to make sure that they had a complete list before they started their review. They couldn't tell me which ones they already had, but asked me to list them.
2) I told them that Padraic Kissane would have a complete list. I doubt if there are any which he does not know about. But I said I would reflect on it anyway. (It turns out that Padraic is meeting them today.)
3) In particular they wanted to know if any issues had arisen since they brought in new disclosure requirements in 2012. I told them that by 2012, the fixed rates and SVRs were way above the trackers, so few if any borrowers were encouraged off trackers.
4) I suggested that they ask the lenders to review all cases where the Ombudsman had rejected the complaint. And to see if their new guidelines would now include that complaint.
5) I suggested that they tell the lenders to review all complaints rejected as out of time by the Ombudsman.
6) I suggested that there was a significant problem with inconsistency. In identical cases, the banks restored trackers for some borrowers and refused them for others. Likewise with the FSO, they seemed to reject some complaints which were identical to others which appeared similar.
7) I suggested that they review all complaints made on the issue, even where the borrower had not pursued it any further. Many complainants just give up as the process is so difficult.
8) They said that the 6 year rule did not apply to them. They were going back to 2006 when the Consumer Protection Code came into effect.
9) I was concerned that some RIP investors whose interest only period expired, were offered an extension of the interest only period if they gave up their trackers. While I don't think that an investor should be allowed to extend a tracker on interest only forever, I felt a fairer compromise would be to increase the margin by 1%.
 
Last edited:

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
37,457
The Central Bank seems serious about this review.

If you lost your tracker and you think it was unfair, you should tell the Central Bank. They will not respond on your particular complaint, but they will use it to inform their review. Of course, in many cases, the CB will agree that you were properly informed.

If you made a complaint to the Ombudsman and it was rejected, you should submit the Ombudsman's report to the CB.

If you were out of time, you should submit your complaint.

If you have seen the bank uphold a similar claim, you should bring that to their attention.
 

robe

Frequent Poster
Messages
68
Hi Brendan. Do you have an email for the CB. And maybe a contact name. Thanks
 
A

Asphyxia

Guest
I am impressed by the fact that the bank's under investigation cannot hide behind the archaic 6 year rule ( which was set aside in the UK years ago, but not here, why ? Our courts system is based on the common law system in the UK ) Hopefully we will see some sanctions at last. Ireland as well as being the Financial wild west was also untethered in relation to consumer protections.
 

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
37,457
Hopefully we will see some sanctions at last.
I am not sure that people are looking for sanctions.

Their priority is to get their trackers back.

If there was a deliberate attempt to get them off their trackers or if there were underhand activities, then it would suggest that the people involved are not fit and proper and should be kicked out of the industry.

Brendan
 
A

Asphyxia

Guest
Brendan,

You and I know that this is exactly what occurred, hopefully the C.B.I. will come to the same conclusion.
 

todo

Frequent Poster
Messages
264
Thanks Brendan, for highlighting this. I hope that the central bank will seek justice for all the borrowers that were tricked out of their tracker rates.

I wonder what the time frame will be before we hear of any possible outcome or if we will hear anything at all?
 
Last edited:
R

rodger

Guest
Hi everyone,

How would people feel about a protest march outside the head office of the main banks BOI, Aib etc on a weekday morning? Get the media attention?

Placards such as:

Robbing bankers
Restore our trackers
Fire the bankers
Rotten bankers: give me back my money
Customers 1 bank executives 0

Because I don't see enough media attention given over to the plight of tracker holders who are being swindled by the daylight theiving of bank executives.

PTSB customers: how are they being treated?

Being asked to send in medical evidence because PTSB broke there law?

After they won their case!

Does this need to go to European court?
Before authorities here begin to wake up.

We need to strike while the situation is being assessed by the C.B.I to show how serious people feel.

The cancerous disease in Irish banking must by rooted out. Hit the people at the top before they retire on fat pensions.

When these institutions are hit with a €10 million fine by the central bank for cheating what kind of bonus will the chief executives get then?

Hit them where it hurts.
 

Somar

Registered User
Messages
32
In relation to the PTSB tracker saga, everyone that finds themselves in a position where their tracker was cheated away from them through PTSB manufacturing margains of interest rates above the ECB rate at the time, must now act and write their letter to the Department of Enforcement at the Central Bank while the CB investigation is ongoing.
No point writing when investigation is over.
Forget about sanctions against bankers, will never happen in this country. Anne Furlong and her cronies in PTSB would steal their way out of that one, just as they stole away our trackers and in some cases much more.

If your original mortgage docs state you were entitled to a tracker and has no details of a margain above the ECB rate, then I am confident that after the CB investigation, these trackers will be restored to the correct ECB rate and the balance and compensation paid out.

Now is the time to act, so start writing and give names and mortgage a/c numbers. They won't write back but the info you send in will be used in the investigation.

This inducement of ordinary hard working customers off their trackers, by a lender bailed out by the very same customers is criminal, and were it brought before the European Courts would finish PTSB, so let's take the fight to them!!
 

belizebaby

Registered User
Messages
8
Hi,

to echo robe's question

what's the best way to get in contact with the Central Bank in relation to this ?

Thanks
 

Gerard123

Frequent Poster
Messages
294
Thanks Rodger.

I emailed that email address setting out my situation briefly, stating that I had a tracker, fixed the mortgage for a period, was not provided the option of a tracker on exiting fixed even though upfront documentation had stated I would be offered a tracker. I also stated that I had appealed to the FSO and they ruled against me. I had shown the paperwork, in advance of my appeal, to a very acknowledged/experienced financial advisor (who is a frequent contributor to this site) who confirmed that I had a very clear case and the documents were compelling. Even with that the FSO ruled against me. The Bank had very clearly misused/miscommunicated the original documentation I signed and represented it as something it never was. With the only option of a High Court appeal I could not proceed.

I would encourage others to do the same, write in with their comments to the email address you provide, where there is strong/good evidence to support their case. I hope that it is genuine parties who write in, who can support their case rather than people 'chancing their arm' or feel aggrieved that they did not select a tracker. I really believe that the strength of genuine cases is diluted massively where numerous parties make a claim for a tracker where there is no entitlement, much and all that that may be difficult to accept.

To prevent the floodgates opening I feel the FSO has taken a very pro Bank side in tracker cases, and his rulings are very contradictory. It should be that if the FSO makes a particular ruling based on a set of facts, that should set precedent, however it does not and it is left to each person to fight their own corner, sotospeak.

Thanks all.
 

bogstandard

Registered User
Messages
23
I met with the Central Bank yesterday:

8) They said that the 6 year rule did not apply to them. They were going back to 2006 when the Consumer Protection Code came into effect.
This point is of extreme importance especially for KBC tracker holders.

The code of conduct came into force on August 1st 2006. KBC pushed borrowers to move to fixed rates in May 2006 & July 2006 with a higlighted "expiry date" of July 22nd. It could be argued that KBC knew this was coming and wanted to get as many people off trackers as possible and the CB maybe should look at internal communications in KBC.

This would suggest that those who took a KBC, or any other institution's offer prior to August 1st 2006 will not be covered by the review.


My fixed rate was in August 2006 and under the CB code of conduct I should have been offered a 3 year capped tracker as this was the "most suitable" rate on offer. I should also have been made aware of the actual rate that would aply after the fixed rate ended. (based on current rates at the time).

I sent a complaint to FSO, but it was rejected as it was over 6 years since the inception of the fixed rate.

I sent a letter to CB in August and got a reply to say that my issue would be passed to the relevant people investigating trackers.
 

Sarenco

Frequent Poster
Messages
5,378
Hi Gerard

Could you clarify what you mean by the "upfront documentation"? Did you receive preliminary documentation indicating something that was not ultimately reflected in the formal home loan agreement? In other words, was there a conflict between the wording of two documents?
 

Gerard123

Frequent Poster
Messages
294
Sarenco - I mean the documentation signed at the time of moving from the tracker to the fixed rate. The FSO accepted that I was most definitely on a tracker before moving to fixed so no issue there. Also the Bank did not dispute that I was on a tracker and entitled to the tracker in advance of moving to the fixed rate.

bogstandard - with the letter you sent to the CB, did you include all the information and support, for example the document you signed moving from tracker to fixed, a copy of the FSO ruling, etc? Thanks.
 

Sarenco

Frequent Poster
Messages
5,378
Sarenco - I mean the documentation signed at the time of moving from the tracker to the fixed rate. The FSO accepted that I was most definitely on a tracker before moving to fixed so no issue there. Also the Bank did not dispute that I was on a tracker and entitled to the tracker in advance of moving to the fixed rate.
Understood but was the loan documentation clear that you were entitled to revert to a tracker rate on expiry of the fixed rate term? That's really the key point.
 
Top