What they say retrospectively is irrelevant. The issue is the wording in the contract. You need to consider the wording in the context of :I questioned the prevailing rate issue with KBC numerous times and finally when pushed, they put it in writing to me that the prevailing rate was the SVR (in 2006). But they didn't actually mention the rate or give me proof. I feel that I was being fobbed off just to shut me up. I will find that documentation tomorrow and post photos here. Could it be that this is another lie from KBC??
1 The Framework document which set out the parameters within which the banks were to conduct the tracker review.
2 The Consumer Protection code
3 The EU directive in relation to unfair terms in contracts.
In my view, and it's only that, reference to a "prevailing variable rate" in a contract, with no explanation or clarification , breaches the guidelines set out in 1 , 2 and 3 above.
What really matter for those who proceed with appeals based on suspect wording in mortgage contracts is what the FSPO thinks, or a High Court judge thinks.