Ulster Bank offer tracker back for 1 year...

[Karolina77]

Would appreciate advice:

UB mortgage - tracker rate for 'lifetime of mortgage' as per terms & conditions. Fixed in 06 and expected to return to tracker in 08. We weren't offered it back at that time and naively accepted this - rolled onto SVR. A year later fixed for 3 years - the form we signed this time said we'd go back to SVR but seeing as we were coming from an SVR, this obviously didn't cause us concern. Realised earlier this year due to threads like this (how have I missed all this???) - anyway realised we had what seems to be a rock solid case - complaint into UB, eventually got reply back recently offering us tracker back for the 1 year we were on SVR as they can see why we would have thought we were due to go back on it??!!! Anyway they then say BUT because you signed FRA in 09 stating that you go onto SVR upon expiring of this rate, we don't feel that there was any error on the banks part. I'm presuming this is all just nonsense - we've sent a much more detailed, strongly worded letter back to them - their original letter was Final Response but no harm in trying as from what I can see, first answer always seems to be NO. Complaint going to ombudsman asap too. Just feel so so angry today that they are getting away with this and we are being made go through all of this to get what we are legally entitled to. Any advice or thoughts would be appreciated.

I have to say the Final Response Letter was shocking. It was a bit rambling, some of the sentences made no sense whatsoever and it seemed to go around in circles until they say well we 'feel' we did nothing wrong so accept our offer in writing or go to Ombudsman.......

 

[Bronte]

As you've received your final response letter your next option is the Ombudsman, there was no point writing back to UB after that letter. Please check if the following is correct:

1. Original mortgage with lifetime tracker

2. Fixed from 2006 to 2008.

3. 2008 moved automatically onto SVR

Ulster bank are now agreeing you should have moved onto tracker and will refund you for this time period.

4. 2009 filled out FRA (?) and fixed for 3 years. This document stated that at the end of the fix you would move to SVR.

Ulster saying that you are not entitled to tracker as you signed the FRA.

The argument I would have with them is this,

A. If you had been on the tracker in 2008 instead of the SVR you would not have fixed for another 3 years in 2009.
B. At no time did Ulster bank notifiy you that you would lose your tracker, not in 2006 when you fixed, nor in 2009 when you again fixed.
C. You should have been informed you would lose your tracker.
D. You would never have given up your tracker.

This is extremely serious for you. I personally don't have a lot of faith in the ombudsman. It might be an idea to use an expert to get you thought this. There is a poster on her called Padkiss who might take on your case, maybe on a no win no fee, but you'd have to pay if he gets you back to the tracker. Not sure how he operates.

 

[Karolina77]

Thanks Bronte. Those details are correct about Ulster Bank. They didn't put it in those exact words i.e. we 'should' have gone back on Tracker in 2008. They said we can see why you would have thought that you would go back on it. And then it went onto 'however we cannot ignore the fact that you fixed again in 2009 etc etc so on an exceptional basis we are offering back the tracker for this 1 year period. It's as much of an admission I suppose as they'll give. As my husband said, if he sent a letter like that out from his job, he would be fired as they have basically admitted that we should have been on it from then and are trying to get out of the rest of it because of the FRA. We have all those arguments in our letter to Ombudsman so gonna start there and see. I've been in touch with a few people who have had the exact same kind of timeline as us and all got rulings from the Ombudsman. I really think our case is very straightforward particularly considering they have conceded the tracker for a period - our argument is that all decisions after the expiry of our fixed rate came about solely because they didn't follow the terms & conditions of our mortgage.