With respect I would have a much stronger view than it makes no sense, frankly lot of nonsense being talked above.
I, and I am not alone, had a tracker with FA, signed letters in 2006 to fix rate with no mention of loss of tracker, no mention of tracker removal, or anything like that. Yet at the end I was not given my tracker back. My view is that UB on being the new owner of FA used every trick in the book and plenty not in any book, to deny people trackers. Absolute nonsense to say that if one was on a tracker to simply ignore the UB letter as one would default back to tracker. It didn't happen, fact is UB decided not to give them back.
They ie UB portrayed the FA letter I signed in 2006 as a 'Tracker removal letter' when it wasn't headed like that, never even used words like removal, cessation of tracker or anything that remotely could be construed as such. That is the essence of many of the FA tracker rate problems. I spoke to several people in the bank at the time, got plenty of 'sympathy' on the phone, comments like it seems you should have got a tracker back, etc. All counted for nought. Wish I had recorded the calls with hindsight.
It seems that finally the CB have identified what happened and the Bank will hopefully be held to account. I also hope that the CB review includes a review of how the decisions were arrived at not to give the trackers back, who made them, how high up, etc. These were not one off unfortunate mistakes. They were systematic decisions taken to deny a large number of people trackers. To say otherwise is delusional.