Bank of Ireland Tracker taken- Staff at the time.

I don't discount your versions of events Monbretia. Nor do I discount your career with the bank. I never dealt with the branch in any capacity in association with my mortgage. So nothing is directed at you, lets be very clear here.

As soon as the banks knew the value of the tracker, be in it 2007, 2008!! We couldn't get back on it, so I am sorry the Bank didn't look out for the best interests of it's customer's, not by a long shot.
Recently they sent out letters to trackers customer's, trying to entice people to move to 2,5 & 10 year fixed mortgages, without any warning, that they would lose their tracker. Dirty tricks once again. And got into hot water with the Central Bank.
From my experience only, they have not been transparent in any capacity. I am not talking about staff members, sure I worked there myself. It's the big fish, I will never ever believe that the bank held the best interests of the customer especially during the recession. End of.
 
Monbretia said:
However I definitely believe at some stage after 2010 there was something done to the default on these loans as too many people did not automatically revert, there is a very interesting thread on Rollercoaster by Lucybousy with lots of case, I think she also posted here about her case.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the follow up Monbretia.

I tracked down that thread and I certainly agree that there are too many cases reported there with the same bank and the same fact pattern to be a simple coincidence.

Hopefully these cases will form part of the Central Bank's review, even if all complaints received were accepted by the bank without requiring borrowers to pursue their complaint with the FSO. If the Central Bank does find that any change to the settings was a concerted or deliberate attempt to remove borrowers from the rate to which they should have defaulted (and to which they were contractually entitled) then there should be serious consequences for the bank and any individuals involved.
 
The Central bank is carrying out its current investigation with regards to cases going back to 2006 ( the Consumer protection Code 2006). If the C.B.I. finds significant breaches of the said code they will direct the bank to forsake the 6 year statute barred rule, as they did with PTSB.
 
The Consumer Protection Code came into full effect on 1 July 2007. In any event, the apparent change to the default settings that Monbretia is referencing happened after 2010.

In my opinion, if it transpires that any bank deliberately altered default settings in an attempt to move borrowers off a rate to which they were legally entitled then there should be consequences for the bank and any individuals involved, in terms of fines and other penalties, even if it turns out that no borrowers actually suffered any loss (because the bank restored all affected borrowers to the correct rate on receipt of complaints).
 
So as not to confuse readers of this thread, the general principles of the Consumer Protection Code was introduced by the CBI on the 1st August 2006, certain other provisions of the code came into effect on the 31st August 2006. The implementation time for all affected bodies to comply fully with the code was the 1st July 2007, after this time, the CBI would not take cognisance of any mitigating factors regarding delays in the codes implementation, into consideration.
 
The point I was making is that the apparent change to the default settings referenced by Monbretia happened after 2010 and the FSO's six year rule is therefore irrelevant.

There is no evidence that any lenders were making any attempts to move borrowers off trackers prior to mid-2008 - in fact, the opposite was the case - so this is a moot point.

You also appear to be suggesting that a breach of the Code gives rise to an enforceable right of action on the part of an individual consumer - that is not correct.
 
I, for one, will await the outcome of the current CBI investigation into financial institutions before jumping to your conclusion that there is no such evidence.

In relation to your last assertion that I suggested that borrowers could have a cause of action for breaches of the CPC, I never suggested same. However, if complying with the CPC is a term incorporated in a loan agreement or indeed if a borrower can prove that the said breaches of the code directly resulted in an actual loss or damage, then different considerations would apply.
 
Why would any banks have taken steps to remove trackers from borrowers in 2006 when they were actively encouraging borrowers with SVRs to switch to trackers at that time? That would make absolutely no logical sense.

I have never seen a loan agreement where a lender covenants to comply with any Code.
 
If a loan agreement incorporates compliance with the CPC as a term within the contract, then this is enough, the lender does not have to go as far as to actually covenant compliance with the code within the loan agreement for the CPC to become a term within the contract.
 
What does "incorporates compliance with the CPC as a term of the contract" mean? If it's a contractual promise to comply with the provisions of the CPC, well that's a covenant. Like I say, I never seen such a covenant in a loan agreement.
 
Monbretia said:
To answer you Sarenco, there were different types of fixed rates. For example if a person took a new mortgage fixed for say the first 2 yrs then the loan offer would say under the rate part the fixed rate and what type of rate thereafter, be it tracker or variable. For a period while trackers were everywhere practically all mortgages issued on this basis would have been reverting to tracker. These mortgage holders would get a letter a month or so before their fixed rate was up giving them the options of whatever new fixed rates were there, if they did not tick a box for a new fixed rate the loan would automatically on maturity go back to whatever rate was specified in their original loan offer. When this was a tracker they would get ECB plus whatever margin their loan offer stated. There was not a box to tick on the letter to go to tracker because that would automatically happen if you didn't want a further fixed rate, it wasn't an option as such, the loan was a tracker. I can't recall the exact wording of the letter, I don't think it would have spelled out what actual rate you returned to if a tracker as there were many different margins a person could be on, any reference to what would happen if you didn't pick a fixed was more likely to just refer to the rate specified on your loan offer. Any loan offer that said fixed for x time & thereafter ECB+ whatever should automatically go back to tracker when the fixed matured. I regularly called people re the letters and explained that if they wanted to go back to tracker (which to most people just meant variable) then they were to do nothing, no need to return the letter with the fixed options.

It was different where someone chose to switch to a fixed rate where they may have had a variable mortgage for some years, they would sign a fixed rate appendix to switch and when the fixed ended they would go back to whatever they came from, if that was a variable rather than a tracker they would return to the variable rate being offered at that time. There would be no mentions of trackers in their case unless it was during one of the many campaigns to get customers to switch to them, in that case they might turn up on my list to contact. If they did switch to tracker and then subsequently fix they had no automatic right to go back to a tracker if they were no longer being issued at the time of maturity of the fixed rate, if they were still there they could have one, if they were gone the original loan offer dictated rate.

Again it never happened while I worked there that we in the branch actively tried to get people off trackers, some posters clearly don't believe me, I don't care. Yes indeed I was only one of the plebs outside of Head Office but I was the mortgage advisor in my branch and responsible for the branches lending, I can honestly say I never advised anyone of something I did not think was in their best interest, now hindsight is marvellous and if I made mistakes it was with the right intentions (buying bank shares myself was one I was guilty of :) ) I knew many of the head office lending staff and would be in contact practically daily but while we often discussed the bad lending being done and the lax guidelines, trackers were never a hot item at that time.

However I definitely believe at some stage after 2010 there was something done to the default on these loans as too many people did not automatically revert, there is a very interesting thread on Rollercoaster by Lucybousy with lots of case, I think she also posted here about her case.
Click to expand...
I was one of the 1800 staff in Bank of Ireland that lost their Trackers after coming off two year fixed rate in 2009. I have all the documentation
That the bank issued to staff at the time defending their decision. I also have print outs from the banks' systems which clearly show my loans reverting to Trackers. I took my case to FSO who found in my favour.B/I appealed decision to the High Court and then to my utter shock, FSO pulled the case themselves and told me that they would review my case again from the beginning and with a different team of people.
A year and a half later (the whole process took nearly five years) FSO
Found in favour of the bank and awarded me a paltry one thousand euro.
I have sent my complaint to the Central Bank and they have said it will be included in their review.
I urge everyone who has unfairly lost their Tracker to send in their complaint to the Central Bank
It is vitally important that CB is aware of the huge number of people whose lives have been turned upside because of their bank's refusal to allow them back on Trackers.
 
That sounds totally bizarre.

Could you give us a little more detail? Are you saying you were contractually entitled to revert to a tracker in 2009 on the expiry of your 2-year fixed term and would have done so but for a change to BoI's systems?

If it was that clear cut why did the FSO ultimately find in favour of the bank and why did the FSO offer you any compensation at all if they found in favour of the bank? That makes no sense.

Were you ultimately put back on a tracker rate?

If it turns out that any lender consciously and deliberately removed any borrowers from a rate to which they were contractually entitled then there should be serious consequences - for both the bank and any individual bank employees involved.
 
Sarenco said:
What does "incorporates compliance with the CPC as a term of the contract" mean? If it's a contractual promise to comply with the provisions of the CPC, well that's a covenant. Like I say, I never seen such a covenant in a loan agreement.
Click to expand...

If a loan agreement has a written TERM included within the agreement, that stipulates that the agreement as a whole shall not restrict or exclude any regulations made by the CPC and further states that if any conflict exists between the agreement and the code, such code rights will prevail. Then, the regulations of the CPC can be said to be incorporated as a term within the contract. Therefore, any breaches of the CPC with respect to the loan agreement can now be classified as a breach of the contract and as such has obvious serious ramifications.

Incorporation of terms in law is the inclusion of terms in contracts formed in such a way that the courts recognise them as valid. For a term to be considered incorporated it must fulfil three requirements. Firstly, notice of the terms should be given before or during the agreement of the contract. Secondly, the terms must be found in a document intended to be contractual. Thirdly, "reasonable steps" must be taken by the party who forms the term to bring it to the attention of the other party. The rules on incorporating terms in law within this State are almost all at a common law level.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MAX01 said:
I was one of the 1800 staff in Bank of Ireland that lost their Trackers after coming off two year fixed rate in 2009. I have all the documentation
That the bank issued to staff at the time defending their decision. I also have print outs from the banks' systems which clearly show my loans reverting to Trackers. I took my case to FSO who found in my favour.B/I appealed decision to the High Court and then to my utter shock, FSO pulled the case themselves and told me that they would review my case again from the beginning and with a different team of people.
A year and a half later (the whole process took nearly five years) FSO
Found in favour of the bank and awarded me a paltry one thousand euro.
I have sent my complaint to the Central Bank and they have said it will be included in their review.
I urge everyone who has unfairly lost their Tracker to send in their complaint to the Central Bank
It is vitally important that CB is aware of the huge number of people whose lives have been turned upside because of their bank's refusal to allow them back on Trackers.
Click to expand...


What will be interesting in this case, will be to see the reasons why the F.S.O. pulled the case from the High Court. Hopefully, the current CBI investigation will ascertain same. The F.S.O. had better of had valid legal reasons for withdrawing, especially after finding in favour of the borrower in the first instance.

The post is yet another anecdotal example of the systematic attempts by banks to remove borrowers off tracker mortgages, despite the bluster and prevarications of other posters on this site.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am very interested in the detail of what MAX1 has to say.

Can we agree to leave your unorthodox legal musings and anti-bank rants to another day? Happy to discuss these issues on another thread if you want to start one.
 
Yes, the MAX1 Post is very interesting indeed and it is good that the CBI have confirmed that they will include same in their current review.

With regard to what I have posted as being the requirements necessary to incorporate a term into a contract, can you tell me what on earth is unorthodox about same ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can you start another thread if you really want to discuss this again?

I'm happy to discuss issues of contract law, group psychology or any other issue of banking practice with you elsewhere but I don't think it's fair to clutter this thread up any more than it already has been.

We should encourage bank "insiders" like Monbretia and MAX01 that are willing to give us their insights.
 
Last edited:
You are correct of course, will you please stop posting your fallacious legal opinions to this thread and let us hear from some people actual affected by the actions of the banks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fascinating stuff from the bank insiders. I have a personal, but related question - was there a policy in mid 2008 (but before October 2008 when trackers became unavailable) not to give trackers if they could? I was approved for a mortgage by the BOI sometime in May 2008 and was told I chould choose between fixed and trackers. In July when I signed the mortgage papers the bank said I could only choose between SVR and fixed; tracker was no longer available. I never had a tracker in my contract so I have no case but I am really really curious now as I always thought I was unlucky in terms of timing but now it turns out the BOI pulled trackers in October 2008 only. I did not know, I thought it was earlier. And my LTV was below 80% then. I wonder if the bank officers were instructed to pull tracker offers in July 2008? Would anybody know anything about it?
 
Rebuttal said:
If a loan agreement has a written TERM included within the agreement, that stipulates that the agreement as a whole shall not restrict or exclude any regulations made by the CPC and further states that if any conflict exists between the agreement and the code, such code rights will prevail. Then, the regulations of the CPC can be said to be incorporated as a term within the contract. Therefore, any breaches of the CPC with respect to the loan agreement can now be classified as a breach of the contract and as such has obvious serious ramifications.

Incorporation of terms in law is the inclusion of terms in contracts formed in such a way that the courts recognise them as valid. For a term to be considered incorporated it must fulfil three requirements. Firstly, notice of the terms should be given before or during the agreement of the contract. Secondly, the terms must be found in a document intended to be contractual. Thirdly, "reasonable steps" must be taken by the party who forms the term to bring it to the attention of the other party. The rules on incorporating terms in law within this State are almost all at a common law level.
Click to expand...


Rebuttal,

If the term is as you state it is, then of course the regulations under the Consumer Protection Code have been incorporated into the contract through the term, excuse the pun, but there can be no rebuttal of this fact, no matter how fanciful and inventive an opposing argument is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top