Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 54,801
This is a very interesting decision from the Ombudsman which will have implications for others. I attach the decision, but here is the summary
August 2004 drew down the mortgage on a discounted variable rate
October 2006 fixed for two years
October 2008 - borrowers claimed that the bank manager advised them that the 5 year fixed rate of 4.9% was a very attractive rate
Borrowers claimed
it was clear in the documentation that, on expiry of the discounted variable interest rate period in 2006, the loan would revert to the “appropriate
variable rate.”
As a result, the bank was under no contractual obligation to offer them a tracker interest rate on their mortgage loan.
The fact that the bank was offering tracker interest rates to new or existing mortgage customers, including on the couple’s other properties, did not create an
obligation to offer a tracker rate in all situations.
While the Ombudsman accepted that the bank did not include a specific definition of “variable rate”, in this instance he took the view that there was no
reason for the couple to reasonably expect that the term “variable rate” related to a tracker interest rate, given that their account drew down on a
standard variable rate.
August 2004 drew down the mortgage on a discounted variable rate
October 2006 fixed for two years
October 2008 - borrowers claimed that the bank manager advised them that the 5 year fixed rate of 4.9% was a very attractive rate
Borrowers claimed
- They were not offered a tracker in October 2006 or October 2008
- Trackers were available during this period
- And the borrowers had trackers on two other properties
- They were incorrectly advised to enter a 5 year fixed rate
- There was no reference to a tracker in either the 2004 mortgage contract or the fixed interest rate documentation in 2006
- By October 2008 they had ceased to offer trackers
- In the original application in 2004, the borrowers had the option of a tracker, but chose the discounted variable rate instead
- The other two mortgage contracts were completely separate and had no bearing on this mortgage
- They denied that the bank manager had advised them to fix for 5 years
it was clear in the documentation that, on expiry of the discounted variable interest rate period in 2006, the loan would revert to the “appropriate
variable rate.”
As a result, the bank was under no contractual obligation to offer them a tracker interest rate on their mortgage loan.
The fact that the bank was offering tracker interest rates to new or existing mortgage customers, including on the couple’s other properties, did not create an
obligation to offer a tracker rate in all situations.
While the Ombudsman accepted that the bank did not include a specific definition of “variable rate”, in this instance he took the view that there was no
reason for the couple to reasonably expect that the term “variable rate” related to a tracker interest rate, given that their account drew down on a
standard variable rate.