Deliberately Wrongly categorised as a Buy to Let by Ulster Bank result in massive over charging

1. Do you have 2 sub-accounts in your mortgage?
2. Are they both classified as BTL?
3. Is the main account a tracker?
4. Did you already own another home when you purchased this, or were you moving in immediately?
Do you have access to UB historical mortgage rates?
 
I don't have a list of all the rates to hand, but it's possible to find them when putting together a specific case.

It's tedious but you can use the website here to see historical snapshots of a website: archive.org/web/

Alternatively, going back through copies of the newspapers for the dates your rate changed. You can access these via your library.

Maybe someone here already has them from a tracker redress case.

Unfortunately UB archive their press releases, so they're not all available online as with some banks.
 
@Monbretia
That makes more sense than:


I read the case as being First Active? In early 2008 they offered the same interest rates for PDH and BTL loans.

The difference was that BTL was interest only for up to 5 years. So, one could choose a BTL rate and pay interest only.

Since the rate was the same, it'd be difficult to show the bank did it to charge exorbitant rates.

But to only realise recently that you're paying recently?

It's an interesting case, but the facts need to be laid out clearly.
there were certainly much better rates available when they forced us into a 5 year fixed. they also claim we were offered other products but that was nevr the case. the broker said its this 5 year fixed rate or nothing. The only reason in my eyes that they placed us in a 5 year fixed was to avoid the stress testing.
We brought them to the ombudsman regarding not giving us the tracker. we were before the avalanche of tracker scandal claims/complaints and the ombudsman i think was not aware of the horrific behaviour of retail lenders at that atage. We lost but were given some compensation because of their stalling tactics etc. I had bèen hesitant to switch or change or pay down more of the mortgage because i felt it was conceeding or condoning their treatment of us. The only rates i was quoted were extremely high so it didnt make sense to move to a different fixing or variable product. Only when i got to speak to a friend who works there did they realise that the lower pdh rates were not available to us and an investigation took place to resolve it. Therefore were have been artificially held on higher pdh rates for years and deserve to be compensated for this. all the applications and documents stste pdh but the mortgage was always btl.
 
I don't have a list of all the rates to hand, but it's possible to find them when putting together a specific case.

It's tedious but you can use the website here to see historical snapshots of a website: archive.org/web/

Alternatively, going back through copies of the newspapers for the dates your rate changed. You can access these via your library.

Maybe someone here already has them from a tracker redress case.

Unfortunately UB archive their press releases, so they're not all available online as with some banks.
Thank you for your help on this i will check the archive and papers
 
all the applications and documents stste pdh but the mortgage was always btl.
Based on what you've said, yes I agree fully that you should have been on a Pdh rate, and you deserve compensation for the difference.
However, you need to move away from the narrative that they did it intentionally, because it doesn't make any sense. You were already in a BTL tracker rate for the original purchase long before you got the top-up on the 5 year fixed rate. At the time you got the initial mortgage, the same tracker rate was available for BTL and PDH purposes. Move away from the narrative about fraudulent, criminal behaviour, and stuck to the facts. You'll get further.
 
Agree with above and also the 'forcing' you onto the 5 yr fixed so that they wouldn't have to do a stress test is a bit of a red herring. The benefit of no stress testing on a mortgage application was to allow the borrower borrow more than they could on any other rate as every other shorter fixed term or variable rate had to be stress tested. If you qualified for the amount you wanted on the other rates then why would they care if you went for them rather than the 5yr fixed, the 5yr was popular with borrowers as it allowed a higher loan than they could get on any other rate.
 
Back
Top