Some people are wrongly attributing their problems to their loss of their tracker.

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
37,957
Some people have suffered a lot from losing their tracker mortgage.

But some have attributed all their problems to the loss of the tracker, when, in fact, the rate they were charged, was pretty much irrelevant to them.

Here are three examples

upload_2017-10-26_11-18-5.png



Borrower B's problems are clearly caused by the overcharging. If he had been charged the correct repayments, then he would not have been in arrears.

Borrower C's problems were not caused by the overcharging. If he had been charged the correct repayments, he would have been in arrears of €30,000. So his problem was caused by the loss of his job or income or change in family circumstances or whatever.

Borrower A is a bit more complex. If they had plenty of income and savings, the extra €20,000 may have just been a financial loss and may not have impacted their life. But if they had to cancel their health insurance and make other sacrifices, they may well been severely impacted.

And then there is the complexity of restructuring
If a borrower paid what they could and engaged with their lender and their lender refused to restructure their mortgage or put them through the mill in order to do so, then there would be further compensation due.

However, what about Case D?
upload_2017-10-27_10-7-45.png


The lender and borrower engaged with each other. The mortgage was restructured so the payments were reduced to close to what they would have been on a tracker mortgage.

So he was overcharged "only" €5,000.

D cannot attribute all his problems to the loss of the tracker.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

SaySomething

Frequent Poster
Messages
554
From a straight accounting point of view this makes sense.
However, I think you underestimate the mental load of an arrears situation.

For example, Borrower C is in arrears, with the complication of the overcharge. For arguments sake, the difference is €500 per month between the repayments due on the correct rate, and those due on the overcharge rate. That €500 represents a mountain to climb, far bigger than a standard arrears situation. The higher the mountain, the more difficult it is to climb.

Saying all of this as a customer who would not have entered into the arrears process if they had been charged the correct rate.
 

justo

Frequent Poster
Messages
114
Hi Brendan: what about Borrower D, who were close to arrears many times so they decided not to have another kid because they could barely afford to provide for the kids they already had?

Oh yeah, Borrower D was having upwards of €450 per month taken from their current account each month for 8 years.
 

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
37,957
Hi justo

Borrower D is a subset of Borrower A. Maybe I could break them down into sub-groups - kept out of arrears with difficulty or overcharge didn't affect them.

Brendan
 

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
37,957
However, I think you underestimate the mental load of an arrears situation.
Hi SS

I don't underestimate it at all. I have dealt with many people struggling with arrears and repossessions so I fully understand it.

Say that Johnny was a builder. His income collapsed. This was the principal cause of his problems. Even if the interest rate was zero %, he would still have been in deep arrears. The extra €20,000 has simply made the problem worse, but he would have had a big problem anyway.

Brendan
 

justo

Frequent Poster
Messages
114
Hi justo

Borrower D is a subset of Borrower A. Maybe I could break them down into sub-groups - kept out of arrears with difficulty or overcharge didn't affect them.

Brendan
My response was a bit snippy...

The point I wanted to make was that we can break people into quantifiable cohorts, but I would be reluctant to claim that just because someone managed on paper to keep their head above water it does not mean that they were not affected, and significantly so.
 

Fakenews

Registered User
Messages
11
I had to pay off negative equity on the place I sold in order to get rid of it. I was losing money every month on a BTL. That negative equity payment should have been the deposit on a house. When we eventually bought a house the prices had gone up and so we had to pay more so we lost out twice. ( also lost out on all of the rental income as well)
 

joe351980

Frequent Poster
Messages
94
Or borrow E.F or G. Couldn't afford mortgage and decided to pay other bills and continue into arrears. How different people dealt with this is entirely personal.
It has definitely changed my psych. It is very hard to judge who was more affected by this.
My house is next to the parents on a family farm and the taught of loosing it was immeasurable. It has alot more to do with than sums.
I think banks would like to have you on the 'independent' appeals committee all the same. Tried to put in a smiley there put wouldn't let me
 

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
37,957
I was losing money every month on a BTL.
I was referring to family homes in my first thread. The Buy to Lets are a completely different ballgame, but the same principles would apply. If someone was pushed into arrears and making losses by the overcharge, then they have a big claim. If, on the other hand, they were not paying what they would have been paying on a tracker, then I can't see why they have any loss at all.

Brendan
 

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
37,957
Couldn't afford mortgage and decided to pay other bills and continue into arrears.
Hi Joe

If they were in arrears by less than the amount of payments overcharged, then they were definitely impacted.

If they couldn't afford a tracker mortgage because of the loss of income, then I don't see how they were.

Brendan
 

joe351980

Frequent Poster
Messages
94
My grandfather always said it's not the amount of money you have its how you choose to spend it. Could you of scraped by to keep up the tracker repayment.
Having a tracker mortgage would make 1 try alot harder to keep up repayments
 

Jespie1

Registered User
Messages
26
What about people who unfortunately ended their life because they were in arrears due to the banks not giving the correct rate of interest. Bank have to remember people and how they destroyed families
 

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
37,957
What about people who unfortunately ended their life because they were in arrears due to the banks not giving the correct rate of interest.
They are in Group B. These are people who were in arrears due to losing their trackers.

Far more people were in arrears due to losing their incomes, and presumably far more of them committed suicide as well.
 

Jespie1

Registered User
Messages
26
They are in Group B. These are people who were in arrears due to losing their trackers.

Far more people were in arrears due to losing their incomes, and presumably far more of them committed suicide as well.
It's not so black and white brendan trust me I know
 

justo

Frequent Poster
Messages
114
Brendan - this thread seems particularly insensitive. Please don't simplify the complexity and sensitivity associated with a suicide by matter-of-factly slotting them into some pseudo categorization that you have created.

If you think 'some people' (you don't explain who these people in the title of the thread are - making this thread even more News of the World like) are jumping on the bandwagon of affected customers please make your case in a more sophisticated way.

A borrower 'A' could have found themselves in a deep psychological hole by prioritising their (inflated) mortgage repayments over their and their family's wellfare.

Not everything can be explained with a spreadsheet.
 

skinnylegs

Registered User
Messages
34
"what about people that committed suicide"
"they are in group B"

Brendan,
Are you for real?
For your own sake take a look over this thread and try to imagine what it would be like for somebody reading it who had someone close to them that committed suicide.
 

PFS7979

Frequent Poster
Messages
150
A rather strange thread this... can I add a cohort...

Mr A and Ms B , young single professional people each buy a home on a tracker.

They meet, get married and set up home together. Both are moved off their tracker unfairly. Is it fair for this couple to apportion a large part of the blame for financial difficulty on being denied the correct tracker margin on their mortgages?
 

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
37,957
Both are moved off their tracker unfairly.
Hi PF

This is completely a new category for me. People have been taken off their trackers for getting married.

This is about people who have been wrongly taken off trackers. Not the reasons for which they were taken off trackers.

If your couple was incorrectly taken off trackers and they fell into Category A,B or C, then that would determine if their arrears and other losses were caused by the loss of their tracker.

Brendan
 

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
37,957
"what about people that committed suicide"
"they are in group B"

Brendan,
Are you for real?
For your own sake take a look over this thread and try to imagine what it would be like for somebody reading it who had someone close to them that committed suicide.
Hi Skinnylegs

You are missing the point of this thread.

If someone was wrongly taken off their tracker
And if, as a result of this, they were pushed into arrears,
And as a result of the arrears, they committed suicide

Then I think that their estate may have a claim.

But if someone was €50,000 in arrears, but had been overcharged €20,000, they would have been in €30,000 arrears anyway. So perhaps they would have committed suicide.

We have to be honest here. If someone commits suicide, there are usually many, many factors. But people are blaming arrears, when it's the cause of the arrears which may have been the real cause.

Brendan
 
Top