Central Bank review of trackers for other banks

Sarenco

Frequent Poster
Messages
5,378
Sarenco asked: Where did I get that idea?

Quote:
The Central Bank added: "We remain concerned that there may be other tracker-related issues which could be impacting on consumers across the system." It said it was engaging closely with a number of lenders to ensure they acted in the best interests of customers who had trackers at some point.
No doubt but you said that somebody would have a case if a bank did not act in their best interests. As a standalone statement, that is untrue.
 

Sarenco

Frequent Poster
Messages
5,378
quote from today's article:

It said it was engaging closely with a number of lenders to ensure they acted in the best interests of customers who had trackers at some point.
No doubt they are but from what we have been told so far (a) Bobby was never at any point on a tracker rate; and (b) Bobby never broke out of a fixed rate mortgage in circumstances where that resulted in the loss of a tracker that he or she would otherwise have been entitled to at the end of the fixed rate period.
 

bogstandard

Registered User
Messages
23
Article in indo today (not enough posts to give link)

Maybe the FSO is finally realising that they are meant to protect the consumer and not the bank.

Without getting too excited, this is all looking very positive for those wiho were cheated out of trackers by underhand tactics of banks - KBC in particular who gave you less than 10 days to respond to their unsolicited "Special fixed rate Offer" in bold type. And then put in tiny font "get independent legal advice" - yeah right, less than 10 days to get independent legal advice, make informed decision and get form back in case rates rise again and you miss out as the "specail rate" would expire.

What a ruse.

Maybe, just maybe, there will be justice.
 

Bronte

Frequent Poster
Messages
13,239
Financial ombudsman to look at 500 tracker mortgage cases that his office rejected to see if they were wrongly dismissed

http://www.independent.ie/business/...ers-as-tracker-probe-is-widened-34120959.html

Article from Charlie Weston in the Irish Independant. It was also mentioned on the radio this weekend as RTE had an interview the ombudsman. Weston has been brillant on this issue with many article over the years.

The Financial Services Ombudsman’s office is now reviewing all of the decisions it made in the past five years, when homeowners took complaints to it after losing tracker mortgages, the Irish Independent has learned.


The Central Bank is already investigating all the lenders in the market over taking trackers from people, and the review by the ombudsman will feed into this.


and AAM poster Padraic Kissane who has done trojan work in this area is also mentioned:

Financial adviser Padraic Kissane, who specialises in helping customers get trackers back, said banks that refused to put people back on trackers

after they fixed were in breach of Central Bank rules.

“The floodgates will open with thousands of people having trackers restored and getting compensation,” he predicted.
 

PadKiss

Frequent Poster
Messages
215
PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO THE CONSUMER
12 A regulated entity must ensure that all information it provides to a consumer is clear and comprehensible, and that key items are brought to the attention of the consumer. The method of presentation must not disguise, diminish or obscure important information.
 

PadKiss

Frequent Poster
Messages
215
Sorry sent the previous post before typing my comment
This is from the Consumer Protection Code 2006 and clearly highlights my concerns on the matter of Trackers. And note it states the Consumer Protection Code, will update later on what is to occur as it is ongoing at present but I have met with the Central Bank and the Financial Ombudsman on the matter
Padraic
 
R

rodger

Guest
Will FSOB and CBI make rulings as they find them?

Or will FSOB/ CBI wait until everything is decided and issue all rulings in one final decree?

The second option will take longer.

And then will there be redress boards?
 

random2011

Frequent Poster
Messages
169
This entire situation is a farce. By the sounds of it those affected (outside the redress scheme and inside) will be waiting for another 6 months if not longer. We all know how long it took for the last PTSB investigation to complete which is not yet fully completed. Why does the bank for the sake of it's reputation just hold their hands up and deal with the overall issue for once and for all. Re-instate trackers to all who were entitled and pay correct refunds on same. They are in the media every week for the wrong reasons and you would wonder why upper management is allowing this to be the case.
 
R

Rebuttal

Guest
Whatever gave you that impression!

Banks are not required to act in the best interests of their borrowers. Just like any other company, banks are required to act in the best interests of their shareholders.

Do you expect Tesco to act in your best interests? No? Well, why do you think banks are any different.

They are businesses - not charities - and have a legal obligation to maximise the value of their shareholders' capital investment.
Sarenco,


I would refer you to to the follow, chapter 2 of the Consumer Protection Code 2006.

PRINCIPLES

A regulated entity must ensure that in all its dealings with customers and within the context of its authorisation it:

  1. 2.1 acts honestly, fairly and professionally in the best interests of its customers and the integrity of the market;

  2. 2.2 acts with due skill, care and diligence in the best interests of its customers;

  3. 2.3 does not recklessly, negligently or deliberately mislead a customer as to the

    real or perceived advantages or disadvantages of any product or service;

  4. 2.4 has and employs effectively the resources, policies and procedures, systems and control checks, including compliance checks, and staff training that are necessary for compliance with this Code;

  5. 2.5 seeks from its customers information relevant to the product or service requested;

  6. 2.6 makes full disclosure of all relevant material information, including all charges, in a way that seeks to inform the customer;

  7. 2.7 seeks to avoid conflicts of interest;

  8. 2.8 corrects errors and handles complaints speedily, efficiently and fairly;


    Our courts have turned a blind eye to this code to date, stating that breaches of the code do not shield a borrower from a bank enforcing its security, so maybe the Central Bank Of Ireland is finally going to flex it's muscles and use it's administrative sanction processes for such breaches.

    I might add that borrowers in mortgage difficulty should examine their respective loan agreement terms. Sometimes banks put in self onerous clauses that stitch the consumer protection code or indeed the Consumer Protection Act 1995 into the fabric of the loan agreement. If this be the case, a borrower can use said breaches of the code or statute as a defence in any court action by the bank. What is more, if there is a term like that included in a borrowers loan agreement, any such breach of the relevant code or statute referred to, that causes loss or damage to the borrower, can be classed as a breach of contract by the bank.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sarenco

Frequent Poster
Messages
5,378
I am familiar with the Code.

I was responding to an incorrect statement to the effect that a borrower has a case if a lender does not act in their best interests. A breach of the Code does not, of itself, give rise to a cause of action against a regulated entity.

I wouldn't agree that the Courts have "turned a blind eye" to the Central Banks various codes. On the contrary, the Supreme Court has clarified (but not ignored) the very limited role of the Courts in administering the Central Bank's codes.

I have never seen a loan agreement that is drafted in the manner suggested.
 
R

Rebuttal

Guest
I am familiar with the Code.

I was responding to an incorrect statement to the effect that a borrower has a case if a lender does not act in their best interests. A breach of the Code does not, of itself, give rise to a cause of action against a regulated entity.

I wouldn't agree that the Courts have "turned a blind eye" to the Central Banks various codes. On the contrary, the Supreme Court has clarified (but not ignored) the very limited role of the Courts in administering the Central Bank's codes.

I have never seen a loan agreement that is drafted in the manner suggested.
Sarenco,

Look up National Irish Bank / Danske bank contracts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sarenco

Frequent Poster
Messages
5,378
I don't have access to any Danske loan contracts. Please see free to quote an extract.
 
R

rodger

Guest
What bobby said:
" If we do not receive a written instruction from you in relation to the above on or before...., we will automatically default your loan to the tracker variable rate.
The next letter from the bank was dated the day after the closing date and included the following "account has been switched from a tracker rate to a fixed rate."

So the bank intended to default to tracker
But then did a u turn?

That seems to be a plausible case.

Keep in mind what Bobby asked is did he have a case. Not did he have a watertight case.

Sounds to me like he has as case.

And sounds like that annoys sarenco
 

Sarenco

Frequent Poster
Messages
5,378
I'm not annoyed! I was simply trying to tease out what the case might be.

I can only assume that the bank did receive an instruction to put Bobby on a new 3-year fixed rate mortgage on the expiry of the original fixed rate term. If Bobby did not give this instruction to the bank then, absolutely, there's a case for breach of contract. The fact that the Bank confirmed the arrangement after the date upon which Bobby would otherwise have defaulted to a tracker is a red herring - the real question is whether or not the bank received any instruction from Bobby on or before the default date.

Bobby may well have a case but I can't see it from the facts as presented so far.
 
R

Rebuttal

Guest
Sarenco,

As far as the bank's are concerned, assume nothing.
 

Leighlinboy

Frequent Poster
Messages
115
From reading the scope of the CB's review in press release i had a modicum of hope, but this thread seems to be implying that cases need to be similar in context to PTSB.....in my own case was on KBC Tracker , bombarded with letters as the rates flew up went up , moved to 5 year fixed..........lost tracker in process, several cases rejected by FSO which were word for word similar to my own,documentations wording was sufficient in those cases, so havent approached ombudmsan , probably still within 6 year period ...maybe i was honing in on the piece re banks practices, transparency informing you of implications etc ............heres hoping its all encompassing review of all practices around trackers . Fair play Brendan and Padraic for sticking with this for so long !
 

Bronte

Frequent Poster
Messages
13,239
If you have a modicum of hope Leighlinboy you should submit a case to the Ombudsman, the way things are now in there it would seem to me the odds have moved away from the banks to the customers. Nothing ventured nothing gained.
 

Staffy

Registered User
Messages
2
I requested that the FSO review my case and they have written back stating that they cannot review it as a decision was made and can only be referred to the high court? I thought the FSO were reviewing Tracker cases? My case was partially upheld.
 
Top