Yes. They look at your average offsetting balance over two different periods. 1) The last 6 years and 2) the last 2 years. They pick whatever is the higher of the two.So just for my own clarification, they are using past offsetting balance to predict future interest saving
For what it’s worth Doni666 I think you have a point around the wording of their T&Cs with regards to the “Offsetting Arrangement” and they seem to make the distinction between that and the accounts that go into the arrangement. I noticed that myself when I had a closer look at the T&Cs a few months ago. There is a big difference between making certain account types ineligible for inclusion in an offset and removing the offset arrangement entirely! If they were so sure that the wording of the T&Cs were ironclad and beyond challenge they would just remove the offset feature and be gone, they certainly wouldn’t be paying €58 million to people as “goodwill” payments. Why would they need to care about goodwill if they are no longer in the jurisdiction? So I think UB know themselves that they are on somewhat shaky ground here.UB made a decision and offered us an ex gratia goodwill payment which we had to accept. They also stated this didn't affect our right to complain.
I'm not saying that any of us should have to repay this payment as it's not compensation but a goodwill gesture .
What I am saying is that if you read the FA contract it does state that as long as you have an offset mortgage you must have an offset arrangement.
I do believe there are very serious grounds for any offset customer to hold UB to a breach of contract and if we could retain the status quo with our offset and keep the goodwill gesture and have the best of both worlds. For example in UBs response letter to my complaint they basically reiterate their ability to close the offset using the same clauses in the contract as they quote on their website. One that they quote is :
Section A - 8 (d)(1) From time to time, we [the bank] may decide in our absolute discretion that a particular product or account is no longer eligible for inclusion in an offset arrangement.”
My response to this is :
This clause allows you [the bank] the discretion to remove a particular product or account. Singular. Not to completely close and end in totality my offset flexible arrangement. Also in the Unfair Terms in contracts a term that is always considered unfair is “ A term that gives business the exclusive right to decide that goods/services conform to the contract.
There has been nothing but tumbleweed from the Central Bank regarding this move, I haven’t seen anything from them saying that they are looking into it, checking the legitimacy of it or anything like that.How they have worked out the compensation could be considered generous. The doubling, the fact they are compensating since last August when offsetting is not ending till May. 10 extra months, I know of one case where someone got compensated even though their mortgage was redeemed before offsetting ended.
A lot miss out due to their own history and how they had used the offset. And when not forewarned that is hard to swallow. I wonder how anyone has got on that could prove future intent to offset??
I get for you Doni that it's not about that but if UB could do it at all. It seems they can. Be very interesting to see if central bank come back of if ombudsman will even go near this. Of if they too where informed. Government will do nothing, even if a large shareholder in AIB, we have seen that they are powerless to force the banks to do anything.
It all comes down to point of law but I believe UB are confident on that. Or they would not have paid out 58 million until everything was finalised.
Yeah but they seemed to be involved at every other step of UB and KBC withdrawl "for the consumer". Hard to believe they would not of been aware here too.There has been nothing but tumbleweed from the Central Bank regarding this move, I haven’t seen anything from them saying that they are looking into it, checking the legitimacy of it or anything like that.
It’s difficult not to draw certain conclusions from their complete silence on this matter so far.Yeah but they seemed to be involved at every other step of UB and KBC withdrawl "for the consumer". Hard to believe they would not of been aware here too.
Waiting on a final response from them and then FSPO. I don't expect them to say any different in their final response. UB will fight every step of the way until FSPO gives a preliminary decision.A lot of detail in there Doni. But can only see them coming back with the same response. Which their legal would have wrote before this was even announced.
What's the next step?
Yeah that what I was asking really. And could be what they are banking on. Is the cost of legal to you greater than the loss of benefits.I'm mulling about the thought of a possible injunction against them but will see what the expected cost of that is next week!
Best of luck, it will be interesting to see how this goes!Don't be so defeatist guys! David v Goliath.
I'm with you on this. It's all smoke and mirrors with UB. I sent formal complaint, got a final response, badly worded response, incorrect details etc. They are covering things up on these mortgages. I'll be submitting a complaint to the ombudsman. FA originally sold us these mortgages, UB took them over but they were sloppy with their paperwork, T&Cs etc.Don't be so defeatist guys! David v Goliath.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?