Thanks odonovanpm for your response.
Yes this has all gone a bit quite the last few months and I am surprised it wasn't a bigger topic during the election debate. Maybe there isn't enough of us in this situation. Do you mind explaining what exactly the FSO and Central Bank have said to you?
KBC of course told me to go away and wouldn't even respond to my 2nd complaint, while the FSO wouldn't look at my case as it was from 2006. I also recently spoke to a solicitor on this website who advised he is in the process of bringing a similar case to KBC.
Thanks again
In my opinion, it is inevitable KBC are going to have to reinstate trackers stemming from fixed rate forms in 2006.
Why 2006? KBC were still offering trackers back in 2006.
The context in Q4 2008 was completely different and I agree that KBC may well find themselves in difficulties as regards borrowers on tracker rates that fixed during this period if KBC do not have a very clear paper trail evidencing that borrowers fully understood the consequences of what they were signing.
Because it was seemingly better for the customer ,rising interest rates, and fixed rates gave a better margin to the banks .Why would the banks try to take people off trackers in 2006/2007? They were still being sold at that stage...
I don't believe banks tried to get customers "off" trackers until mid 2008
The ECB famously continued to increase interest rates right through the summer of 2008 and Irish banks stopped offering trackers as soon as the financial crises erupted in Q4 2008 (because the ECB refi rate was no longer reflective of their cost of funds). There was a concern at the time that banks were inappropriately offering competitive fixes to customers in order to lure them off their trackers (KBC was very much in the frame in this regard).
The Central Bank unusually issued a public warning to the banks at the time.
The situation in 2006 was completely different. Banks were still offering increasingly competitive trackers and the financial crisis wasn't even on the horizon. So why would banks be interested in luring customers off tracker rates at that time? A borrower could simply walk across the road and get a tracker rate from a competitor.
The Central Bank's original Consumer Protection Code didn't come into full effect until July 2007. In any event, the Code does not contain the suggested wording and does not create actionable rights for a customer.
I did not say that the wording was in the Consumer Protection Code, but the broader Central Bank review, which is more customer-focused than the FSO, does require banks to show how they communicated that the tracker rate would be removed.
Well I was responding to your comment that a bank would have been in breach of the Code if they didn't provide a particular statement. Absolutely agree that the purpose of the Central Bank's review should be broader than simply identifying possible breaches of their Code.
However, I don't see how it will be possible to demonstrate that any bank was systematically or deliberately trying to lure anybody of a tracker back in 2006. That would be bizarre thing to do at a time when they were still actively marketing trackers.
Again, the context in Q4 2008 was completely different...
However, no bank, or any other business for that matter, wants to have a contractual/permanent cap on their profit margin.
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?