Some borrowers have only themselves to blame for losing their trackers

Lightening

Frequent Poster
Messages
319
@Sarenco
Quote
It is certainly true that some contracts were ambiguous on this point but the vast majority were actually pretty clear. Unquote

This is correct.

It's with a legal firm so I will not be quoting my contract. As you have stated some were not clear.
 

Sarenco

Frequent Poster
Messages
5,530
I find it striking that some posters protest in very strong terms about how they have been wronged by their lender but then prevaricate when simply asked to tell us what their contract says.

Perhaps that feeds into cremeegg's point.
 
F

Freshstart

Guest
But Cremeegg for the most part the impacted customers are "the taxpayer"!
 

PGF2016

Frequent Poster
Messages
306
However, when I read cases on here and in the papers I also have to say that for some people, (and I fully accept everyone is different so please don't jump down my throat here) got into financial difficulties not because of their loss of a tracker but because they were carrying far to much debt and frankly made a mess of their own finances. It's not always "someone else's fault"
The unpalatable truth. How do we as a nation prevent this from happening again? This should be part of a financial literacy course taught in school.
 

emeralds

Frequent Poster
Messages
657
What I also find incredible is the number of borrowers who don't have all the paperwork relating to their mortgages.
I looked at ours last night and we are on a 'Tracker Variable' at ECB + 0.9%.
 

cremeegg

Frequent Poster
Messages
2,954
From what I can gather on the numbers. 370,000 people took out tracker mortgages, 20,000 people lost them, 350,000 still have them.

What makes the 20,000 who lost their trackers different from the 350,000 who kept theirs.
 

peteb

Frequent Poster
Messages
1,648
From what I can gather on the numbers. 370,000 people took out tracker mortgages, 20,000 people lost them, 350,000 still have them.

What makes the 20,000 who lost their trackers different from the 350,000 who kept theirs.
they probably didnt fix around 2006 when the the ECB rates were passing out the fixed rates.
 

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
37,953
Just to summarise

In some cases, borrowers were clearly entitled to a return to tracker after the fixed rate ended and the lender clearly and incorrectly did not offer them. In these cases, the lenders have given them back or will be giving them back.

Examples: AIB refusing trackers on the grounds that they did not do them anymore and ptsb claiming that people who broke their fixed term contracts early were not entitled to avail of the "You will be offered a tracker at the end of your fixed rate period."

But the fact that some people were clearly entitled to get their trackers back, does not mean that everyone who ever had a tracker should get theirs back.

When people fixed their rates and the documentation was clear that they would not be getting their tracker back, they will not be getting their tracker back. They can go to the FSO, the courts and the European Court if they want to. But they will not be getting their trackers back.

It's very important that people realise this. It's clear to me that some posters on Askaboutmoney have very unrealistic expectations.

I think that this is the point Cremeegg is making and it's a helpful point, even if people might not like it. Making the point does not make him or Sarenco "pro-bank".

I have seen the documentation in one of the 1,800 BoI Staff Tracker cases, and it was clear to me that the FSO was correct in not giving her back her tracker. I find it odd that 1,800 people working in a bank were apparently tricked out of their valuable trackers by their employers. I would have thought that there would have been a general discussion among staff whether or not it was a good thing to do and the pros and cons would have been discussed over the photocopier.

And before you all accuse me too of being pro-bank, it's absolutely clear to me that some people were denied their trackers incorrectly and I am glad that they have been returned. Where the CB finds evidence that a bank deliberately tried to encourage customers off trackers, even if the documentation is clear that they would be losing their trackers, these customers should get their trackers back.

But where people took a bet on interest rates by fixing and where the documentation was clear that they would be giving up their tracker rate, then they really have no grounds for complaint.

Brendan
 

Bronte

Frequent Poster
Messages
13,461
@Sarenco
Quote
It is certainly true that some contracts were ambiguous on this point but the vast majority were actually pretty clear. Unquote

This is correct.

It's with a legal firm so I will not be quoting my contract. As you have stated some were not clear.
What kind of an answer is this?

Before you waste any more money on legal fees type out your mortgage clause please.
 

Bronte

Frequent Poster
Messages
13,461
Like Pinkie123 we were offered the tracker when we went to break the fixed rate and the break out was too high at the time. At the second attempt the bank said the tracker was no longer available. We have since discovered they were still giving out trackers during this time but denied us this rate. It was called a "variable rate" mortgage. The bank should have in their contracts differentiated between the variable terms i.e.
Tracker variable
Standard Variable Rate
Home loan rate Etc.

To say the contracts were ambiguous is an understatement!

but "The devil is in the detail"
Even if your bank was giving out trackers it doesn't mean you were entitled to one. Banks have different products which are not available to everybody.

How much was your fixed rate, what year, how much would the tracker have been, what was the break out penalty?
 

elacsaplau

Frequent Poster
Messages
589
When people fixed their rates and the documentation was clear that they would not be getting their tracker back, they will not be getting their tracker back. They can go to the FSO, the courts and the European Court if they want to. But they will not be getting their trackers back.

and

Where the CB finds evidence that a bank deliberately tried to encourage customers off trackers, even if the documentation is clear that they would be losing their trackers, these customers should get their trackers back.
Brendan,

I find these two statements a little contradictory.

Also, at a general level

1. The case I am familiar with is not covered by your summary in that the documentation is simply is not clear and factors like custom & practice and verbal commitments are involved. Hence, the complexity of this issue.

2. In relation to "the CB finding that a bank deliberately tried to encourage customers off trackers" - how is this going to happen? How is the CB going to get access to all relevant documentation to make such a determination?
 

Linten

Registered User
Messages
35
Brendan

Not for the first time, you seem to be suggesting that bank staff 'should have known better' in relation to moving off Tracker. I'm sure you don't mean that they should be treated any differently to any other Consumer in availing of the protections afforded by Consumer protection regulations.
The Bank is hugely diverse, with employees across a wide spectrum including IT, head office roles, back office functions. Many or these staff would be as 'uneducated' as any other consumer in terms of mortgages/interest rates, etc., so to say they should have been able to avoid this situation, by discussing it around the photocopier is a bit simplistic.

I would be interested to see the contract that you mentioned which was turned down by FSO and which in your own opinion was clearcut. I know that my own case and many colleagues are not clearcut, insofar as there is considerable ambiguity in the MFA which was signed when staff switched from their Tracker in the first place. The key points are;
- original mortgage draw down repayment mortgage, variable rate of 2.95%
- special condition 4 specifies that interest rate will be no more than .95% above ECB REPO rate for life of loan.
- 'tracker' rate is not mentioned anywhere in the offer letter
- MFA signed August 2006(after introduction of Consumer Protection Code), highlights roll to interest rate shall be the prevailing Home Loan Variable rate
- "save as set on on this Form of Authorisation, all the terms and conditions applicable to the Loan remain unchanged."

There was no mention of a Tracker interest rate in the original offer letter and again no mention of it on the MFA, which is consistent and which should have resulted in special condition 4 (ECB repo rate) being applied. As there is no information available, I am assuming that BOI is defending non return of tracker on the basis that they meant standard variable rate ...to me there is ambiguity there, not the same as but similar to UB cases where Tracker has been restored to many consumers. I believe there is an arguable case but not sure if anybody in the circumstances outlined has taken it forward. If they have I would like to see the FSO response or legal outcome.
 

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
37,953
Hi Elacsau

They are not contradictory. I really doubt if the documentation is clear, that any of the organisations will give the borrower back their tracker. Having said that, I think that if it can be shown that the bank deliberately tried to encourage people off trackers, they should get them back. They won't, but they should.

My summary was not intended to include all cases. I was just highlighting the correctness of cremeegg's suggestion that not everyone deserves their tracker back and gave some examples. There are some cohorts, but there are many individual cases.

I think that the Central Bank will need a whistleblower and I suspect that they have at least one.

Brendan
 

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
37,953
Hi Linten,

I am sure that there are many cases within the 1,800. Some might deserve their trackers back.

They are entitled to the same protections as other consumers. But I still find it very difficult to understand how an employer managed to "con" 1,800 staff, some of which were fairly senior.

Brendan
 

Hogmeister55

Registered User
Messages
27
Hi Brendan,

In October 2008 the bank put up a message on the internal website that all staff accounts on the fixed rate would roll to the tracker as per original loan agreement.

At that point regardless of any contracts, wording, misunderstandings, or any other factors prior to that the bank and the staff both believed the same thing. The mortgages would roll to trackers. I believe the IT system was programmed for this to happen too.

I think it is perfectly fair that the staff challenge why this didn't happen and instead we were told in January 2009 that they changed their view AFTER that October date.

I am not a financial or legal expert and do not sell products to customers.

On the question of whether or not we were conned. Below is honestly how I ended up in this position.

When the bank put out a staff offer In 2006 I assumed they were offering it in my best interests. I had a tracker and wouldn't have moved off it without that offer. I hadn't considered it. They made it very easy by having a downloadable form I could print out in work. You may not consider that advice but I did and followed it.

I may never get the tracker back and that's something I will have to live with. I am the idiot who brought a form home to my wife to sign and told her how the bank was looking after us as I am staff.
 

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
37,953
Hi Hog

It's a while since I reviewed the case.

At roughly what date did you make the decision to move from the tracker rate to the fixed rate?

Brendan
 

Linten

Registered User
Messages
35
Brendan

I do not subscribe to the idea of getting my Tracker back because I was 'conned' or 'tricked' out of it. The overall purpose of the Tracker review by CBOI is to assess Banks compliance with both contractual and regulatory requirements in how they dealt with the withdrawal of Tracker mortgages from the market.
Nobody tricked me out of anything,(I am not saying that nobody was tricked though as many other people were subjected to unfair means of removing Trackers from them), however I do believe that I have a case for return of my Tracker based on my interpretation of the documentation which I signed and which I believe was not clear in terms of what my mortgage would roll to and which I have outlined in previous post. This would represent a failure by the Bank to meet their obligations under the Consumer Protection Code 2006 - Requirement 12 of Chapter 2 of the Code states "a regulated entity must ensure that all information it provides to a consumer is clear and comprehensible and that key items are brought to the attention of the consumer. The method of presentation must not disguise, diminish or obscure important information".
If the Review finds that I was entitled to my Tracker and restores it on this basis I will be satisfied that justice has been done. If they don't and I get the opportunity to appeal and still lose, then I will take my medicine.
 

Onceagain

Frequent Poster
Messages
139
It was a no brainer, the website stated we would roll onto tracker after the expiry of the fixed rate. We had nothing to lose, 1800 of us made that decision. And yes as staff we always discussed rates. When they denied us return of the tracker, as staff we shouted to managers, the union, the IBOA and we are still shouting. It was the bank that changed the goal posts. We are not trying to get something that we are not entilted too. As customers first and as staff second we were wronged, firstly by BOI, and secondly by our employer. We will continue to fight.
 

MAX01

Registered User
Messages
39
I have a print-out from the bank which stated the following information:
Current Product - Staff 2 year fixed rate
Current Rate - 3.85
Roll to Product - Staff Tracker ECB Repo + 0.75%
Product Rollover Date - 05/01/2009
This information still showed on my loans AFTER my Tracker was pulled.
The bank's excuse was that it took them some time to change the details on the system to reflect the termination of the Tracker option!
 
Top