I beg to differ - I would guess you work in a financial or similar field where such terminoly is part of everyday language, but the ordinary punter would not know.
In any case, you are twisting the argument. What I and many others have said is that the wording "revert to company's standard variable rate" meant to them (and I) that it reverted to the standard variable rate of the main mortgage document - which was the "standard variable rate" that IIB offered at the time. As in posts above, there was no other "standard variable rate" available. A tracker WAS the standard variable rate in the mortgage market in 2005-2007. Also remember, there is no phrase "tracker rate" used in the mortgage document either. The rate was a "Variable Rate mortgage" and in the special conditions it stated that such variable rate would be X% above the ECB rate.
Even a report out today confirms the illiteracy amongst people regarding mortgages and interest rates - "Mortgage Brain managing director Michael Quinn said the research has highlighted "surprisingly low levels of mortgage literacy" in this country. More education was needed, he said."
And as you probably know, where there is ambiguity, the argument will side with the consumer. There is absolutley no doubt that people did not know that a standard variable rate was a very specific rate - and one that did not appear in a glossary of terms or in any correspondance, advertising or mortgage offer at the time.
Can you explain how someone new to mortgage lending and not involved in the financial industry and who has not had a previous mortgage or motor loan or even an overdraft in 2006 would know that "standard variable rate" was a specific rate and when someone says "revert" to a standard variable rate and that the mortgage you have just taken out is stated as a "variable rate annuity mortgage"nand the ONLY variable option rate offered by IIB (I dealt direct) would think that it would revert to some hidden rate, unpublicised and undocumented in any glossary?To be honest, I think you are reading words into your contract that simply aren't there. Your contract simply says you will default to the bank's standard variable rate - it doesn't say you will default to a standard variable rate that is widely marketed or otherwise generally offered or made available to new borrowers when your fixed term expires.
I don't agree that there is any ambiguity in the contract wording - it looks perfectly clear to me. I also disagree that a reasonably observant and prudent borrower in 2005-2007 would have thought that a standard variable rate referred to a tracker - what tracker rate could they have thought was the standard variable rate? There was no standard tracker rate.
.
Thankfully the Central Bank doesn't see it that way and the code of conduct, particularly the more recent codes show that too.
Again, for at least the third time, I think you should seek to argue that your lender did not observe the relevant regulatory disclosure/transparency requirements as they existed at the relevant time, rather than trying to place an artificial interpretation on the actual words used in your contract.
If you disagree with that advice that's absolutely fine.
What were the regulatory disclosure/transparency requirements circa 2006/2007?
The thing is none of us have any further input as the 6 year limit is well gone, but we're showing how unfair the document was to the customer from a lay consumer point of view and the Central Bank thinks the same way as otherwise there would be no investigation and banks such as AIB would not have set aside €150m to correct the issue.Again, for at least the third time, I think you should seek to argue that your lender did not observe the relevant regulatory disclosure/transparency requirements as they existed at the relevant time, rather than trying to place an artificial interpretation on the actual words used in your contract.
If you disagree with that advice that's absolutely fine.
The consumer protection code (August 2006 version).
There is no obligation on a lender to offer any particular mortgage product (or any mortgage at all) to any particular borrower.
[broken link removed]
The thing is none of us have any further input as the 6 year limit is well gone, but we're showing how unfair the document was to the customer from a lay consumer point of view and the Central Bank thinks the same way as otherwise there would be no investigation and banks such as AIB would not have set aside €150m to correct the issue.
Under the current phase of the review process, lenders are required to identify any customers who may have been impacted by:
- a lender's failure to honour a customer's contractual entitlements; or
- its failure to comply with the applicable regulatory disclosure requirements.
I'd disagree -
SUITABILITY 30 A regulated entity must ensure that, having regard to the facts disclosed by the consumer and other relevant facts about that consumer of which the regulated entity is aware:
a) any product or service offered to a consumer is suitable to that consumer;
b) where it offers a selection of product options to the consumer, the product options contained in the selection represent the most suitable from the range available to the regulated entity; or
c) where it recommends a product to a consumer, the recommended product is the most suitable product for that consumer.
Finally got a letter from KBC to say I am part of the Central Bank tracker review. Been waiting months for a call back or some form of recognition that this is even taking place!
@TheBarrall, your case seems very similar to mine so I wonder why they would say you are not part of the review? I also signed the fixed rate document in 2006 (September) and the variable rate in my original contract is also
Doesn't seem to be any consistency , I fixed for 5 years in early 2007 and am included in the review thankfully , can't imagine my fixed form was any different to the @thebarall I also got written response back within 2/3 days of emailing KBC several weeks back which I was surprised by, so assumed once they started openly admitting they were party to the review they would be letting people know. Doesn't look to me they are in any rush to be in a position to have all the affected customers identified by September.....
Yes had the tracker prior to 5 year fixed, came off in 2012 onto "Svr" ...... I understood remit of review to be all people that were on trackers and were moved off them for one reason or another , timing may well prove be an issue in terms of the result , but wouldn't have thought in terms of inclusion in the review , put it back on them for a reason why you aren't included !
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?