Incorrectly lost my BTL Tracker. But sold BTL. Appeal rejected.

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
37,957
The lenders were much slower and much less generous in restructuring buy to lets than family homes, so it is no surprise that 216 BTLs wrongly lost ownership.

In fact, I would say that there were more who were never in any financial difficulty at all with their buy to let, but the very high SVRs made them unprofitable so they sold them with no intervention from the bank at all.

So the 216 figure is probably an understatement.

Brendan
 
Last edited:

Fakenews

Registered User
Messages
11
Brendan. I lost a BTL because it was unprofitable and without intervention from the bank. However the banks stance on this is that this is purely a “commercial decision” by the borrower and has nothing to do with the interest rate overcharge. I don’t know the detail of the 216 but if there are others like me then that 216 is going to be higher. Any idea how the CBI defines that 216? Is it 216 that the banks have declared or is it 216 that are claiming to have lost their BTL?
 

Dpdp01050842

Registered User
Messages
34
For my BTL I was over paying by 700 a month. Never missed a cent or was ever late with a payment. A family member lent me €300 per month for 5 years. When they retired I had to sell as I could not afford the repayments. I didn’t want to sell but I had to. This would be classified as a voluntary sale. Bank and appeals panel said the rate had no impact on my choice to sell and it was my commercial decision.

I am sure there are 100s of BTL owners who didn’t play system and just sold as their investments we’re loss making or impacting their personal finances. Following the central bank review and appeals process these people got nothing yet people who didn’t bother to pay ended up with huge compensation in some instances.

Hopefully the ombudsman sides with those who sold when any reasonable person can see if they were on the correct rate they would not have sold.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
37,957
the banks stance on this is that this is purely a “commercial decision” by the borrower and has nothing to do with the interest rate overcharge. I
Sorry Fake

I don't know how many but I have seen other cases.

If you have a property which has a rental income of €10,000 a year and €15,000 interest, you probably should sell it.

If you have a property which has a rental income of €10,000 a year, and €5,000 interest, you should probably keep it.

The commercial decision is based on the commercial aspects of the deal. And the principal one is the cost.

Where are you with it? Have you appealed?

Brendan
 

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
37,957
Following the central bank review and appeals process these people got nothing

Hi Dpd

Presumably you got a refund of the overcharge for the years while you owned the property?

Or did you actually get nothing.

I think you guys should get together and pool resources on this one.

Brendan
 

Dpdp01050842

Registered User
Messages
34
I should be clearer. The standard redress and and compensation ((EBS). Deemed impacted. So overpaid interest was refunded yes.

But in terms of loss of property (or sale of property that was driven by the rate) nothing. Mine is currently with the ombudsman “drafting preliminary findings” and I’m expecting to receive this in the “coming months”. It’s been with them since mid 2017.
 

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
37,957
However the banks stance on this is that this is purely a “commercial decision” by the borrower and has nothing to do with the interest rate overcharge.
Hi Fake

Where does this stand now?

Have you appealed it to the Independent Appeals Panel?

Brendan
 

Fakenews

Registered User
Messages
11
Hi Fake

Where does this stand now?

Have you appealed it to the Independent Appeals Panel?

Brendan
Hi Brendan. I have appealed and am currently awaiting a decision on whether I will get an oral hearing. As well as saying that this was a commercial decision they also argue that rental income did not cover the capital portion of my monthly repayment. My view on this is that capital is not a component of profitability and that the capital portion is akin to contributions to a pension.
I agree with your assessment above. If I have 15k interest and 10k income then I make a loss. Pretty simple from my point of view so I don’t understand why the bank would even make that argument. However, they have made an argument which means that they are not willing to clean up this mess without being forced to. I’ll update this thread whenever I hear back.
 

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
37,957
they also argue that rental income did not cover the capital portion of my monthly repayment.
That is a stupid argument ok.

If you were meeting the full repayment, it doesn't matter to them if it was coming from the rent or from your granny.

Brendan
 

moneymakeover

Frequent Poster
Messages
459
I could be wrong but I think fake is saying he couldn't cover the full repayment
He could cover the interest

What was the term?
Was the bank prepared to extend the term?
 

Fakenews

Registered User
Messages
11
I could be wrong but I think fake is saying he couldn't cover the full repayment
He could cover the interest

What was the term?
Was the bank prepared to extend the term?
Nope. I was able to cover all repayments. When the interest charged exceeded rental income we put the property up for sale. Once we had an offer we carried out additional return on investment calculations and also spoke to our local bank manager. No joy from the bank manager and as the property was not profitable we sold. Never missed any payments and never borrowed from anyone to cover the repayments.
 

Fakenews

Registered User
Messages
11
They didn’t ask me to sell.
See above “without intervention from the bank”
We sold it because it was unprofitable.
 
Top