Discussion in 'Tracker Redress' started by tonymac, 31 Jan 2018.
Red onion I have more than 2
So just to be clear Variable Base Rate is actually a Tracker Rate. Can you explain how you came to this conclusion? Thanks for all your help
My loan offer listed a variable base rate. I also had a tracker application which showed a margin + ecb rate attached.
The loan had tracked the ECB rate until mid 2008. Thereafter EBS called this variable base rate a standard variable rate which stopped tracking ECB changes.
The tracker margin and current ECB added up to the variable base rate at the time of drawdown.
Fortunately my tracker was reinstated but EBS are still fighting this for people who don't have a tracker application.
There is EBS documentation & EBS broker documentation that confirm the Variable base rate is a rate that is linked to the ECB base rate at a specific margin, usually +1.25%. As PK has stated it “magically” changed into a standard variable rate in 2008.
There is additional evidence that EBS had significantly more trackers on their loan book (approx 60%, not 30% of loan book) & these were likely to be the fixed to variable base rate loans where the variable basis was tracker.
All of this is supported by extensive evidence provided by EBS customers on this thread. This evidence includes EBS documentation sent to customers, IT system info, EBS/AIB press statements, media interviews & oireachtas appearances.
Of course not all of this information was available to every customer when they drew down their loan. My belief is that at the very least these customers were not given sufficient information about the variable basis of their loan & the variable base rate is an ambiguous term. As such any argument around this cohort should favour the customer.
Do you think they’ll ever do anything about it ? I’m a variable base rate after fixed customer .
The way its been going it appears that the CBI and its so called consumer protection role have and continue to let us down. Looks like Padraig Kissane and/or a day in the courts to determine what a VBR actually is is the way this is going and for me the best chance of success seeing as the tracker examination still amazingly considering all the evidence produced on this site alone hasnt come down in our favour.The FSO is another possibility considering that supposedly ambiguous terminology is supposed to favour the customer but also amazingly this hasnt been coming down in our favour either. From.reading this thread and the evidence produced on it it certainly looks convincing enough to be a winnable case but then again i personally am not from a financial background and maybe im missing something here .Maybe the authorities whose job it is to determine the facts and decide for us here are just like a lot of things in this country turning a blind eye to it and ignoring it due the cost of settling up here actually end up destabilising the bank. Would love to hear some opinions on what is going on and why our issues are not finding favour with any of the authorities to date. Would love to hear something on this from somebody like Charlie Weston or some other financial experts as i have seen articles on some of the other cohorts in the papers, there has been very little or nothing about this one.
Tony mac-what recent Variable Base cases have been unsuccessful at ombudsman stage?
There was a variable base case brought to court in 2016 (Stowe vs EBS) but the ombudsman decision was upheld because of the time limit restriction and not because of the legitimacy of the argument. Here is a summary of the case:
Here is an actual asksboutmoney thread on this case started by Brendan Burgess who references how any contractual ambiguity should favour the customer as was the case for the Stowes and in my opinion all fixed to variable base customers. In this case the Stowes thought that they got an SVR but it tracked the ECB base rate. Again confusion abound with what EBS reps were telling customers.
Here is the full judgement where the court itself says that the Stowes had an “arguable case” but they decided to back the ombudsman around the 6 year time restriction policy.
Great articles, frightening though.
No matter how many times I complained to the EBS staff about my issue, they NEVER suggested I put in an official complaint.
Luckily I heard of a completely different case on the radio about the ombudsman.
Then I asked to go to the ombudsman and was only THEN told you have to put in a formal complaint. If your not happy with the outcome you can then go to the ombudsman.
The staff also have a lot to answer for.
I put my total trust in those people spoke to them on every visit in an office, thinking when I made my complaint to them that I WAS making official complaints.
Hi B26354, havent heard of unsuccessful cases in fairness and i vivedly remember that Stowes case, i have read the pieces you sent me but wouldnt it be terrible if the EBS got away with it this over that 6 year rule. Absolutely disgraceful the way the Stowes were treated, just shows what youre up against. Success as im sure youll agree will be measured on people who get their tracker rates back and compensation, good for trackman but hes the only one so far. I know it wasnt the law back then and is now but surely ambigupos terminology rules will come in our favour in all of this. Doesnt look like the CBI are going to do their job and do what theyve done with other cohorts and basically ordered the banks to concede cases. This 6 year rule appears to apply to the verbal part of the Stowes arguement but when it came to other cohorts reaching settlements more than 6 years after trackers were taken from people it doesnt appear to apply. I will be getting in touch with PK this week as my partner has agreed to allow me to do so and if he tells us there is no case that will be accepted but if his advice after he has seen her documentation and spoken with us is otherwise that will be acted on too. I at this point really just want a proper adjudication on this whole mess so people can move on, going on for far too long at this stage.
The Best of Luck tonymac. Let us know how you get on please.
Will of course, im sure a lot of people on this thread have already gone to him and possibly to the ombudsman which is likely to be the route we go as well after speaking with Padraig.
I’m hopeful the new ombudsman would have sided with a case like the Stowes if he had been in that role at the time. Also important that fixed to variable base customers consider this 6 year time limit when they present their argument to the FSO. I am of the opinion that the issue arises when the customer moves from a fixed rate to the variable base rate i.e. end of fixed rate term. It was at this point that customers should have moved onto a tracker or at the very least been given the option of a tracker because of the ambiguity of the variable base term.
Agree totally B26354, youre piece sums it up very well, we just need to get this adjudicated on, PKs opinion will do for me, cant help thinking though ill end ip in the FSO. As i said above this 6 year rule didnt prevent other cohorts getting justice so why should it prevent the VBR cohort from getting it with all the evidence we have.
The Stowes FSO decision was made in 2013. A lot of water under the bridge since then when it comes to the tracker scandal. At the time the FSO & court may have reasonably thought that the Stowes was an isolated case. However the similarities between the Stowes experience & people on this forum can’t just be a coincidence.
I don’t know if the ambiguity & confusion around the variable base rate term and communication to customers was an intentional EBS strategy (there is evidence on this thread to suggest it was an intentional fudging by EBS & they did push fixed rates) but ultimately it’s a faulty mortgage product & the EBS are responsible for this. Let’s see what the FSO decide to do when there are probably 100’s of Variable base cases this time round all making similar arguments.
All we can do and see where it takes us. As i said ill be getting in touch with PK this week now that my partner has given me the go ahead and as im sure everyone else will do also will let you know how its going.
Thanks tonymac. Surely, as we are still being charged the wrong interest rate, the six year rule does not apply. It infers, that if you don't notice the offence committed against you in time, you must live with the consequences into the future. That's hardly natural justice! By the way, there's a good article in the Indo today by Charlie Weston about this.
Not about our Variable base rate issue which is annoying, we need this sorted at this stage, i just hope im one of the last going into PK and that most contributors are already further down the line with him or the FSO. Hopefully it wont go as far as the courts but it could do.
tonymac I rang PK a few weeks ago looking for advice. The receptioirec cut me off when I said I had an open case with the ombudsman. She said that's what they are now encouraging people to do. I didn't get to speak to PK. So good luck and I hope you get further than me.
Just to let people know i have written to Michael McGrath(FF) and Peter Burke(FG) , both members of the finance committee, regarding our issue and have asked them to raise it and question AIB when they appear before them on April 11th next. I urge others to do likewise and to contact any other members of the committee so as they dont escape unscathed next time like they did last time on our issue.
I am meeting Colm Burke next week will definitely show him the evidence we have so far. Thank you tonymac
Separate names with a comma.