EBS Should Mortgage Lenders have offerded customers a Tracker Mortgage?

P

Patrick28

Guest
Seeking some advice in relation to an overpriced Mortgage.

In 2006 like many others I took out a Mortgage for a property on an overpriced apartment. When I took out this Mortgage I was never told thay I could avail of a tracker Mortgage. I was told that I would have to go on a standard variable Mortgage if I want to get this Mortgage. Recently I have had several conversation with friends who took out their Mortgages with different lenders and the majority of them were offered a Tracker Mortgage. I am looking to Find out if I should have been informed of and right to have been offered a Tracker Mortgage. My Lender is EBS and I have not approached them on this matter. Yet. I am seeking advise on this matter. Cheers guys.
 
I bought around the same time and was told that a tracker wasn't an option for me either. I was sold a fixed rate instead. I signed the contract so I was the idiot.

I presume in my negotiations now I cannot ask to be reverted to a tracker rate as tracker rates are longer existing?? Is this correct?
 
Hi Patrick

You had a choice of lenders and a choice of products. You did not have a right to any particular type of mortgage with any specific lender.

EBS offered you a mortgage which you accepted.

You can't look back now and say that you were cheated. If you did not like the offer from the EBS, you could have gone to another lender.

EBS were reluctant to offer trackers.

Brendan
 
I wonder if you had been to a broker would you have been legally entitled to be at least given all options?

Maybe that's not the case with banks..

Although you don't have a right to any particular type of mortgage,I think the question is,were you entitled to have that information given to you?

So at the very least you could make an informed choice..
 
We used a broker. Although we had informed ourselves of what was available products and rates wise before we made a final choice of mortgage provider and product..
 
thedaras said:
I wonder if you had been to a broker would you have been legally entitled to be at least given all options?

Maybe that's not the case with banks..
Click to expand...
You seem to be implying that the earlier posters may not have been given all the options available in their specific circumstances? But as Brendan has said nobody had/has an automatic right to a particular type of mortgage (tracker or otherwise) from a lender. Some customers may have been offered trackers and some may not have been even where they were customers of the same lender. Even where this happened/happens there is nothing to suggest that there is anything untoward going on. It's just business.
 
No, I was merely wondering if they had a legal entitlement to be given the information,And I agreed that no one has a right to a particular type of mortgage.

I didnt imply nor do I think there was anything untoward going on,I was simply wondering if they were legally entitled to be given information that would adversely affect their decisions,perhaps they were not..

Am I correct that there is a similar situation in regard to Life protection policies.?
 
thedaras said:
No, I was merely wondering if they had a legal entitlement to be given the information
Click to expand...
If a lender didn't want to offer a customer a particular type of mortgage then I can't see how they would be obliged to inform them about it. For example pension mortgages were always restricted (in the main) to the self employed so PAYE workers would generally not qualify for them and lenders wouldn't bother talking to them about this option.
Am I correct that there is a similar situation in regard to Life protection policies.?
Click to expand...
I don't understand - what sort of "similar situation"?
 
Say for example a lender goes to a broker, and the broker decides to "hide" an offer..that would, Id imagine ,be an example of someone failing to inform their client of their choices.
Thats on the presumption that people go to brokers to get the best information about their choices.
I have used brokers several times,and I would be fairly fed up if there was an option I could have taken but was not even offered it.Of course that does not mean they were required to inform me of it,and that is my question,are brokers required to inform their clients of all their choices?

Re the similar situation, an example would be,you know those ads that say," were you mis-sold your blah blah blah...In other words people can be mis- sold information..
Heres one,which is exactly what I mean;
[broken link removed]
 
thedaras said:
are brokers required to inform their clients of all their choices?
Click to expand...

Brokers are required to recommend a course of action based on the facts in front of them and the needs/wants of the client. They must back this up with a statement of suitability/reasons why letter.

If a tracker was available but the broker recommended otherwise, he would need fairly compelling reasons to avoid a complaint by the client.

Then again I have had clients who simply would not take a tracker because at the time another lender offered a cheaper variable rate.

I am intrigued about the life protection thingy you mentioned..gwan..
 
Well NorfBank, your post is exactly the kind of information that could be very useful to those who were not told that a tracker was an option to them and should have been.( they could obviously refuse it,but its about the choice ,when its available )
Is this any use to you re the life protection;
[broken link removed]
Or this;
[broken link removed]

I have no connection with these companies, I am just posting them to show that products may well have been mis-sold .
 
Of course there are sometimes genuine cases of mis-selling of financial products. I just don't think that this (somebody not being told about a tracker assuming it was even an option at the time) is one of them based on the information posted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top