I will be on the Claire Byrne show tonight discussing high SVRs and lost trackers

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
52,024
I had this piece in the Independent last Thursday. It doesn't seem to be online. I will be discussing it on the Claire Byrne Show on RTE 1 tonight at 10.30

Brendan


Don’t forget the victims of the SVR Scandal!


Over the last week we have heard the heart-rending stories from people who lost their tracker mortgages unfairly. In particular, we saw the four victims telling their stories at the Oireachtas Finance Committee.

But something has been overlooked in the discussion. People who lost their tracker mortgages were victims of not one, but two, banking scandals. Not only did they lose out in the Tracker Mortgage Scandal, but they were also victims of the SVR Scandal. The cheap tracker rate which they lost was replaced by the highest Standard Variable Rate in the whole of the eurozone.

Across the eurozone the average rate for a new mortgage is about 1.8%. If an Irish tracker customer with a €300,000 mortgage had unfairly lost a tracker rate of 1% and paid 1.8% instead, it would have cost them an extra €100 a month. While this is a significant amount, for most people it would not have been life changing. They could have cut back elsewhere and found the additional money.

But if they were charged 4.5% instead of 1%, they were paying an extra €500 a month.

There is a life-changing difference between €500 extra a month and €100 extra a month. It pushed many responsible customers into the shame and desperation of arrears. It is why some of them lost their homes and had their lives destroyed. Whereas they could have adapted to an additional €100 a month, €500 was just too much

But while there are 20,000 people affected by the Tracker Mortgage Scandal, there are 300,000 affected by the SVR Scandal. The lenders’ delay in redressing the tracker victims is frustrating, but those affected will eventually get back what they were overcharged and they will get compensation as well. There is no such hope for the SVR victims. They never had trackers so they weren’t as obviously robbed by the banks. But they are paying 3.4% on average for new business compared to 1.8% in the rest of the eurozone. Many of them are in fact paying Standard Variable Rates of 4.5%. While the impact on each individual customer is not as great as the lost tracker, there are ten people affected by this for every one customer affected by the lost tracker issue.

The effects are still serious. They are spending between €200 and €400 more a month on mortgage repayments that they could be spending on their families. In most cases, they can cut back elsewhere and they manage somehow. But in some cases, the extra amount is too much and it pushes them into arrears. Once they go into arrears, their credit record is destroyed so they can’t trade up if they need to move house. Nor can they switch lender to avail of a lower rate from a different lender.

And look at the official response. The Taoiseach has called on the banks to do the right thing by the people who lost their trackers. But not a peep out of him about the 300,000 victims of the SVR Scandal. While the Central Bank has devoted huge resources to sorting out the tracker mortgage scandal, they have done everything in their power to stall and stop Michael McGrath’s bill to halt the SVR scandal.

It’s estimated that the Tracker Mortgage Scandal has cost the banks around €163 million so far, and the cost will probably rise to around €300m. But that is a one off cost. The self-same banks are making around €750m in extra profits, each and every year, by overcharging their SVR customers.

While they lose only once on the swing, they gain every year on the roundabout.



Brendan Burgess is the Director of the Fair Mortgage Rates Campaign
 
Brendan, while I admire your tireless work in this campaign and I fully agree with the sentiments expressed in the sense that the SVR situation is a disgrace, I do also think it is wrong to lump the 2 issues into the same bracket. One of the issues is where the banks acted illegally (tracker scandal) while the other is where they are acting immorally (SVR issue). In my opinion there is a world of difference between the two and I think the you run the risk here of the totally illegal Tracker Scandal being overshadowed somewhat by the immoral SVR crisis and the seriousness of the first issue being lost on the general public as a result.

If we think in terms of punishments for the perpetrators here, I would think that most people believe that those bank officials with responsibility for the Tracker Scandal deserve a custodial sentence for what they have done, I'm not sure the SVR crisis deserves the same sanction.
 
most people believe that those bank officials with responsibility for the Tracker Scandal deserve a custodial sentence for what they have done,

If that comes up tonight I will be very happy to deal with it. Fintan O'Toole may well raise that.

Brendan
 
Another thing to add to the mix is the lack of options for people who have high ltv mortgages after the crash and are now older.

I tried unsuccessfully to release myself from Prison TSB 4.3% variable this year, to a lower rate fixed for 5 years but couldn’t do so. The bank is applying stress test even when they are not required to do so, leaving people in their late forties facing an uncertain future with a lender who can hike up rates tomorrow if they want to.
 
I thought the reason SVRs are higher here in Ireland was because of our inability to evict non paying or unsustainable home owners who cannot afford the home they live in. A bit like insurance we are all paying higher due to many non insured or high payout claims compared to other countries.
 
Jayz Boss that was a very thought provoking article, which has now been taken up by other commenters. I wouldn't miss tonight's programme, not only starring yourself but co-starring Fintan O'Toole:)

But the SVR point is (as Dan O'Brien argues) a failure in the system. I don't think banks have any moral and certainly no legal culpability in this issue; they are commercial entities and in our system the price is the balance between the supplier wanting the highest price and the purchasers wanting the lowest price. Competition is meant to be the consumers protection in this paradigm. The reasons for the lack of healthy competition have been well aired, I think indeed by yourself. The reasons include, for example, the culture of reluctance to pursue defaulters compared to other jurisdictions.

I think DB74 has a point. In turning the SVR systemic failure into another bashing of the banks, with the whiff of a witch hunt, could detract from the culpability on the Tracker issue. Aim your SVR argument at the failure of the system.
 
I tried unsuccessfully to release myself from Prison TSB 4.3% variable this year, to a lower rate fixed for 5 years but couldn’t do so. The bank is applying stress test even when they are not required to do so, leaving people in their late forties facing an uncertain future with a lender who can hike up rates tomorrow if they want to.

I have regularly advocated on here that we adopt the French approach where variable rates are capped at 133% of the average rate on all outstanding variable rate mortgages (including trackers) in the previous quarter.

That would provide a substantial degree of protection for borrowers like yourself that are unable to switch to another lender, without having an adverse impact on competition.

I agree with Dan O'Brien that giving the Central Bank price-fixing powers (as proposed by FF) would be a mistake.
 
I am delighted you are going to bring up the high SVR rates -I'll certainly be watching - there is it seems to me inertia among politicians or government to do anything about this!!!! It is typical Irish - screw the customer because you can,
Also as a person stuck and unable to switch I can't understand why it can't be made a legal right to be able to switch and it should be as simple as changing car insurance or electricity supplier.
 
I think DB74 has a point. In turning the SVR systemic failure into another bashing of the banks, with the whiff of a witch hunt, could detract from the culpability on the Tracker issue. Aim your SVR argument at the failure of the system.

I agree by enlarge here. The SVR issue is very much opportunism by the banks to extract as much money as they can from their customers with the sole objective of strengthening their balance sheets. They are doing it simply because they can and no-one is either willing or able to stop them. Saying competition will sort it out is another example of kicking the can down the road.

But I do believe they are linked by the very fact that the tracker scandal is so much worse because of the SVR issue. If a person on a low tracker (say 1% over ECB) was asked to pay the eurozone average of say 2% as opposed to 4.5%, the issue would not have been as bad. Instead of paying say 35k extra in interest payments, they may only have had to pay 15k. I am sure most would have managed the 2% rate, but many struggled because of the 4.5% rate. How many relationships broke, holidays missed, choosing between heat and food etc happened because of the high SVR rate? How many would not have gone into arrears if it had been 2% interest charged, and potentially avoided the health issues as discussed on Pat Kenny last week?

As an example, 350k mortgage over 30 years
- 1% would mean a monthly repayment of 1125 euro
- 2% increases this to 1294 (increase of 169 a month). Over 8 years this would be 16k extra
- 4.5% increases this to 1773 (increase of 648 a month). Over 8 years this would be 62k extra
While the Tracker issue is very much a legal one, the SVR issue magnified the impact of it and probably was more damaging to the customer than the loss of the tracker in the first instance. Going from 1% to 2% is bad, going from 1% to 4.5% is a different story.
 
I am delighted you are going to bring up the high SVR rates -I'll certainly be watching - there is it seems to me inertia among politicians or government to do anything about this!!!! It is typical Irish - screw the customer because you can,
to be fair, there is also inertia among the customers as well. The number of people who can switch versus do switch is crazy, and the number who can get a better rate with their existing bank by simply applying for it but does not is in the region of 125k
If the people on the SVR's are not willing to help themselves, how can you expect others such as the politician to do anything about it.

While people like Brendan has been pushing this for a long time, he is by enlarge a sole voice. If 300k SVR customers each contacted their politicians and told Fine Gael/Independent Alliance that they would not vote for them in the next election unless serious progress was made on this issue, something would happen quickly. Politicians think of the next election and doing what they can to get elected.
 
Also as a person stuck and unable to switch I can't understand why it can't be made a legal right to be able to switch and it should be as simple as changing car insurance or electricity supplier.
To be fair, car insurance or electricity supplier is not issuing you hundreds of thousands of credit. A car insurance provider is taking minimal risk as you pay upfront. You are not comparing like with like.
I understand your frustration regarding your situation, but saying you need to be able to switch as a legal right is not practical.
 
Hi Brendan,
I'm a ptsb mortgage holder since May 2008. At the end of first year fixed my mortgage was to default to then tracker (ecb + 2.25%) as per mortgage contract. Instead I was sent a misleading offers letter in May 2009, which lead to me choosing what seemed like a more attractive LTV variable instead.
They were very unhelpful when I arranged an appointment regarding said options. I always felt that I had been duped and with everything that has transgressed lately I think that I surely was.
Have been on a standard variable since and it's cost has been crippling.
 
Ouch, wrong answer to opening question IMO. We have been fleeced for the last 10 years, how can you trust the banks? Why is RTE suddenly interested in Ireland having the highest SVR in Europe? Why were they not interested 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 years ago, why now?

It all smells.

Touche Fintan, culture is at the heart of the problem IMO.
 
At the end of first year fixed my mortgage was to default to then tracker (ecb + 2.25%) as per mortgage contract. Instead I was sent a misleading offers letter in May 2009, which lead to me choosing what seemed like a more attractive LTV variable instead.
They were very unhelpful when I arranged an appointment regarding said options. I always felt that I had been duped and with everything that has transgressed lately I think that I surely was.

At the time the ECB rate was around 2.25%. A tracker would have cost 4.5% at that stage. What other options were you offered then?
I think if you were sent a letter which outlined your options and included a tracker @ ECB + 2.25% and you choose not to avail of it, I think your case may be hard to justify - unless you have a line in your mortgage agreement stating "for the lifetime of the mortgage agreement".

Most of the cases you hear about at the moment is where a tracker was not offered to them when they came back off a fixed rate although their mortgage agreement said they should have been offered one. If you were offered one but did not accept it, its a different story.
 
I am with Fintan O'Toole on this. I am so glad he followed up his brilliant Irish Times piece today with an appearance on the Claire Byrne show. Who made the executive decision within the banks to find way to get people off trackers? Where is the paper trail within the banks? Of course it wasn't an "error". This is white collar crime. It was premeditated and should be punished as such. Let's see people answer for this. And NO - the Central Bank can't look after the banks and also act as consumer protection for the customers. Maybe finally things are changing in this country.
 
I’m not convinced.

If you’re a bank and you’re advised that there’s a 20% chance that you can successfully move a customer away from a massively unprofitable mortgage contract, and you plough ahead, that’s unethical rather than illegal.
 
What about the words in print from the bank: "you have a tracker rate of...% for the full term of the loan."? Is that not a breach of a contractual commitment to the customer?
 
Back
Top