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

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
37,953
Brendan have u any idea how banks should work out compensation?

Do you believe the compensation in any of the cases in general was sufficient? Or how do you reckon banks came up with a figure without consulting a group representing affected customers.
Again it seems arrogant of the banks. Pay them x and sure they'll be grand. If not jump through a few hoops first.
ptsb paid automatic compensation of 10% of the amount overcharged.
AIB is paying 15% automatic compensation.

This is not an offer. It is not an estimate. It is, in effect, a downpayment.

No one has to claim it. No one has to justify it. At the start, one had to sign a form from ptsb to say you wanted it, which was bizarre. Now the banks pay it automatically.

In any other situation, you would have to claim compensation and they would argue with you and make you an offer. This way, everyone got an initial payment and about 80% didn't ask for any more.

Brendan
 

gnf_ireland

Frequent Poster
Messages
1,367
What I found the hardest was we were in a deal never missed a payment and they still phoned my place of work every couple of weeks. I find the anxiety still hard to deal with.
Absolutely - the banks behaviour both from a customer contact point of view and from dragging their heels point of view has been terrible.
Just to clarify, I am not in any way defending the banks behaviour towards their customers in general. I believe that once a customer is engaging with the bank, there should never be any contact with then other than agreed channels. They should never be allowed to phone a place of work unless it is given as a formal contact number by their customer. I can understand a bank trying to reach a customer to engage with them, but once they have engaged it is a different matter.

The difference to us is 500 euro pm which would have made a big difference to us. I know we would definitely have been able to make the repayments at the rate we have which is 1.05 + ecb.
I think your wording here needs to be slightly changed - you would have been more likely to afford the mortgage repayments if you were either on your original tracker rate or a similar low cost tracker.
If the terms were prevailing tracker rate, and the bank had a tracker rate of 2.5% + ECB available, it may have been a different matter. It was the interest rate that caused the issue.
Obviously everyone's mortgage contract terms can be slightly different - so without reviewing these it is hard to know. I agree with most that in hindsight there were probably not strong enough and can be misinterpreted. But the fact is still that in 2008/09/10- low cost trackers would not have been available as prevailing tracker rates - so the issue may still have happened.
I completely understand what you are saying, and all this is predicated on the fact you would have been given a tracker rate of 1.05%. My understanding of the majority of issues under review is they relate to people who were on trackers, fixed for a period and on expiry/breaking, they were not offered a tracker again when they should have been. Whether this was the original tracker rate on the mortgage contract OR the prevailing tracker rate (at the time the fixed rate expired) is dependent on the mortgage contract.
My point above, was simply if the banks had kept trackers beyond 2008/09, it is likely that the tracker rates would have been higher and therefore you may not have been eligible for the 1.05%+ECB (unless it was stated in your contract).
The issue may also not have happened if the SVR rate was more aligned to the European average and you were asked to pay 2.5% rather than 4.5%+. The issue may also have arisen if the ECB rate did not fall to 0.25% and stayed around the 2% mark.

I completely agree that this has had major impacts on families but from a financial and human level.
 

gnf_ireland

Frequent Poster
Messages
1,367
No one has to claim it. No one has to justify it. At the start, one had to sign a form from ptsb to say you wanted it, which was bizarre. Now the banks pay it automatically.

In any other situation, you would have to claim compensation and they would argue with you and make you an offer.
Out of interest I done a google on "compensation for miscarriages of justice". Seemingly in the UK, its not good enough to have your case quashed any more to get compensation - you have to prove you were innocent. Many believe the only way this could happen is if someone else is found guilty. I have to admit I found that bizarre to say the least
 

joe351980

Frequent Poster
Messages
94
Prevailing means current or at the time. The tracker rate at time of signing contract was still prevailing. And was relevant to that contract. Tracker rates offered to new customers were not prevailing for customers who drew done their mortgage 1 or 2 years previously. Wether they fixed or not
 

robe

Frequent Poster
Messages
67
My point is more that the effect of the overcharge, means you are down that money . In my case I had 9k less because of the bank , and had they not taken this from me I would of been more finiancially able to deal with problems such as the remnants moving out or some other finianciall problem .
So I had drained my resources (savings and people I could borrow from)
The tenants moving out and leaving the house in a state was the straw that broke the camel's back, it could of been the heating going or any other large finianciall outlay.
So ptsb did Rob me of my ability to overcome this problem.
 

gnf_ireland

Frequent Poster
Messages
1,367
Prevailing means current or at the time. The tracker rate at time of signing contract was still prevailing. And was relevant to that contract. Tracker rates offered to new customers were not prevailing for customers who drew done their mortgage 1 or 2 years previously. Wether they fixed or not
@joe351980 I think this definition may very easily end up with the courts to decide.

If I am told that I am going to be able to buy something at the prevailing price in 6 months time, I would not expect this to be today's price. I would expect this to be the price when the event comes to pass.
Similarly, if I am told I would roll over to the prevailing tracker rate in 2 years time, I would not expect this to be the current tracker rate today, but the current tracker rate in 2 years time.

If it was the tracker rate from today or date of drawdown, then surely the exact tracker rate should have been used (ECB +1.05% - or whatever), rather that a term such as prevailing? Or use the term tracker at date of fixing/draw down?


>>And was relevant to that contract. Tracker rates offered to new customers were not prevailing for customers who drew done their mortgage 1 or 2 years previously. Wether they fixed or not
This will be a matter for someone else to decide. It can be argued both ways, but I know how I would read it
I agree that the current/prevailing tracker rate for a customer who signed up to a 1.05%+ECB is irrelevant - whether that be yesterday or a year ago, as that is the rate they are charged in the contract terms. This is no difference to someone who signs up for a fixed rate where the rate is specified.

A customer who fixes has broken this prevailing (ie current) tracker rate and fixed at a totally different rate, by their own choice, for a period of time. After this event expires (matures or breaks out early), then the current/prevailing rates are important to them, not the historic ones. I would argue that the rate the customer signed up to 3 years previously is historic rather than current and irrelevant.

But that said, that would be my interpretation of the word "prevailing" - but it is not my decision. It will be agreed somewhere and I think it will end up being decided by the courts.


There is another way to decide this. Do the banks have a case where someone fixed for 1-2 years in 2005/06 who was entitled to a tracker rate on maturity. The scenario needed is where a tracker was still being offered at the time when the fixed rate matured. Were they offered (ignore what they accepted), the initial tracker rate from the date of drawdown, the tracker rate from the date the fixing period commenced or the tracker rate on the date of the fixing period ended. The answer may help work out how the banks interpreted the term at the time (not with hindsight).
This would clearly set the precedence as to what the banks done at the time? I assume banks would have customers whose fixing periods expired just before the removal of the tracker mortgages ?
 

gnf_ireland

Frequent Poster
Messages
1,367
The tenants moving out and leaving the house in a state was the straw that broke the camel's back, it could of been the heating going or any other large finianciall outlay.
So ptsb did Rob me of my ability to overcome this problem.
Absolutely accept and understand this.

My point being, there are multiple factors at play and I accept PTSB may have a role in that, it is not all of it. I cannot see PTSB accepting that all of the blame is on their shoulders. This is different to Brendan's scenario B, where all the blame is squarely on the banks shoulders (arrears < overcharging). You stated you were in scenario C (arrears > overcharging) but it was the banks fault because of the circumstances listed. Brendan states there are other factors at play (in this case tenants damaging the property) which means its not 100% the banks fault. So in my view, it is still scenario C here (sadly!!). However, you are fully entitled to a completely different viewpoint
 

joe351980

Frequent Poster
Messages
94
Gnf, people took out tracker mortgages and fixed for 2 years. They took out the tracker mortgage on date of draw down. This rate is prevailing within the ban and can be described as the then prevailing rate. Again it is a rate specific to this mortgage and time of offer and for the lifetime of a tracker mortgage. Any other rate prevailing within the bank is not specific to this mortgage.

I think the banks tried to put the blame on customers for breaking fixed rate early or choosing SVR. If banks taught that they could set a 'prevailing' rate as they seen fit, they would have.

Banks tried to deny people cheap trackers. But what about the expensive trackers they could of forced on people. I think they studied both options and to make out the customer was a fault was the one banks used.
 

gnf_ireland

Frequent Poster
Messages
1,367
They took out the tracker mortgage on date of draw down. This rate is prevailing within the ban and can be described as the then prevailing rate.
Absolutely - the 'then prevailing rate'

Again it is a rate specific to this mortgage and time of offer and for the lifetime of a tracker mortgage.
Ok, I will agree to this where the contract clearly states that this is the case and the use of the term 'lifetime of the ...mortgage' is included in it.
If not, a tracker mortgage is simply defined as a variable rate mortgage tracking against the ECB rate.

Any other rate prevailing within the bank is not specific to this mortgage.
Agreed, at this point in time when the draw down happened. If the person had stayed in this rate for the duration of the mortgage, they would still be on it and there are thousands of customers who are still on this rate at drawdown - as they never changed.


I think the banks tried to put the blame on customers for breaking fixed rate early or choosing SVR. If banks taught that they could set a 'prevailing' rate as they seen fit, they would have.
No one is blaming anyone for changing to an SVR rate or Fixed Rate at any time in the lifetime of the mortgage. This is a personal choice people made at the time.
The argument, which I am now going to bow out of, is whether this results in the clock being reset on the prevailing rate or not. So is the tracker mortgage rate the rate as defined at drawdown for the lifetime of the mortgage, or does the resetting of the clock mean the new prevailing rate is used from this point onward. I will let the legal eagles argue this one out.
Of course, if the lifetime of the mortgage is stated in the contract terms, then that is a different case

Banks tried to deny people cheap trackers. But what about the expensive trackers they could of forced on people. I think they studied both options and to make out the customer was a fault was the one banks used.
Agreed they did deny people cheap trackers. The question is back to the wording of the contracts and what they say. I don't have one, but if all that is there is 'prevailing tracker rate', a very good lawyer will be needed.

Of course you have the right to think what you like - but can it be proved. I am sure someone up high made a decision to remove the tracker products and even though where they were entitled to one. I am sure the banks got lots of legal advice at the time - but I am not going to say that I agree with you that "prevailing tracker rate" means the rate at drawdown. Sorry, but I don't. I suggested that a set of customers whose fixed term matured just before the removal of the tracker should be used to see what was meant back then (not now)


This phrase has a lot of ground to cover yet, so think I will now abstain from the discussion and wish you all the best in getting the best possible rate when it comes to the restoration time.
 

joe351980

Frequent Poster
Messages
94
Bowing out myself. 1 more thing. What was the mortgage at draw down for the lifetime. Tracker, Fixed or SVR
 

gnf_ireland

Frequent Poster
Messages
1,367
What was the mortgage at draw down for the lifetime. Tracker, Fixed or SVR
No, a mortgage was drawn down for a set amount of money for a set duration.

The mortgage rate can be tracker, SVR, LTV and fixed during the lifetime of the mortgage and can change between them based on customer decision and available rates on offer from the bank.
There is no such thing as a tracker mortgage for the lifetime of the mortgage - a tracker rate can change to a fixed rate if the customer wishes.
 

ppcjbm

Registered User
Messages
8
Tracker rates may not be for the lifetime of the loan but under ptsb notes on home loans under the consumer protection act tracker margins are for the life time of the loan .
 

Bronte

Frequent Poster
Messages
13,458
I'm A for one loan on an investment. It had zero effect on me, I was overcharged by circa 10k, the bank spotted it by accident, and repaid me by reducing the amount owing. I didn't even think if looking fir compensation as to me I'd suffered no loss or hardship.

I'm still though mad as hell about what I still think was an incorrect rate applied on another loan. So there I'm at a financial loss but I could afford it so when I think of others I can't really feel like a victim but it still mad at the ombudsman's decision. I got a token cheque for the banks handling of my case.
 

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
37,953
I'm still though mad as hell about what I still think was an incorrect rate applied on another loan.
That is a good point. I have never been severely impacted by being overcharged. However, I have been very annoyed by it. So do I get compensation for annoyance or time spent getting the error corrected?

Brendan
 

Foxy007

Registered User
Messages
21
Leaving this thread alone. I think what people need to really remember here is people (like myself and our family and our home) had in fact their lives changed in many, many negative ways..with lasting impact for a lot of us regardless of whether we were landlords or not, in arrears or not. There was no way one individual could actually help themselves in fact..... I know because I tried. If its uncomfortable reading or to take on board then maybe there needs to be more public statements made by those of us who were actually impacted badly.
 

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
37,953
Again, this thread has nothing to do with how badly you have been impacted.

It's about the cause of the bad impact.

In many cases, it was the loss of the tracker.

In others, the loss of the tracker had nothing to do with it as the person was paying little or nothing anyway.

Brendan
 

Bronte

Frequent Poster
Messages
13,458
That is a good point. I have never been severely impacted by being overcharged. However, I have been very annoyed by it. So do I get compensation for annoyance or time spent getting the error corrected?

Brendan
I was even more mad at dealing with them over the matter. It took a very long time to go via the ombudsman etc. I did get compensation for the fact of how they dealt with me, but it was exhausting.

I actually don't really mind an error, not at all, not if it's real and one gets an apology, that's fine. I hear ads for banks on the radio about how lovely they are, well they are not if they have a deliberate policy of keeping you on hold, of making you feel like a pest or an idiot. Take Amazon for example, their customer service is excellent, ditto Aer Lingus, but not Ryanair. Take Irish Water - a disaster to deal with. But the ESB are on the ball. Now why is that. Ryanair has a deliberate policy of no phone calls, if you ring Aer Lingus they are so nice and well trained. Ulsterbank it is my belief has a core belief that the customer is always wrong. Now having said that I've met and spoken to great staff in there, including the guy who spotted the 10K mistake and immediately put it to rights.
 
Top