odonovanpm
Registered User
- Messages
- 10
In that case why did banks continue to offer trackers, at increasingly competitive margins, right up until Q4 2008? If banks wanted to remove any possible cap on their margins in 2006 wouldn't you have expected them to stop offering trackers in 2006?
Nobody could possibly have anticipated in 2006 that the spread between standard variable rates and tracker rates would develop in the way that it did after the financial crisis. Banks certainly didn't - otherwise they would have stopped offering trackers much, much earlier.
The notion that any bank official consciously decided at any time in 2006 that they would consciously lure borrowers off trackers seems wholly fanciful to me. It simply flies in the face of logic.
I appreciate that you feel aggrieved that you signed a contract back in 2006 that turned out to be a poor financial decision with the benefit of hindsight. However it doesn't necessarily follow that there was any deception, misrepresentation or bad faith on the part of your counterpart. You just made, what turned out to be, a bad decision.
Such is life.
Sarenco, you are talking out both sides of your mouth.
Sarenco
You always lean towards the argument the bank
Once the fixed period elapsed the original terms reverted
It is true in my case
By the way I am referring to the Aib conditions.
There were two sets of conditions
Originally 2005 options were to 1 opt fix again 2 opt variable (tracker)
And later in 2006 contacts were written1 opt fix 2 opt to tracker variable 3 opt variable
Both contacts are entitled to return to tracker.
I guess they are the 3000 cases Aib are planning to restore.
in 6 months time when I'm restored to tracker what will your argument be?
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?