Who got good news and who got bad news yesterday?

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
40,708
I did a quick summary for the Today with Seán O'Rourke Show today. Did I leave any big cohort out?

Good news



KBC customers – c.2,500

Their legal position was clear. When they signed the fixed rate agreement it said that they would lose their tracker rate. However, KBC told brokers that they would be going onto trackers

This was due to Padraig Kissane’s work in particular

Some AIB customers – c. 900

They had a rate specified in their contract and AIB claimed that they gave up their right to their trackers when they fixed. They are now getting their trackers back.

Bad news
AIB customers “prevailing rate”

4,000 customers were told that they would go onto the prevailing rate when their fixed rate ended.

At the end of the Fixed term, AIB told them that they no longer had a prevailing rate, so they were put on the SVR.

8 years later, AIB agrees that they should have been offered a prevailing rate.

8 years later, AIB retrospectively set the prevailing rate at higher than the SVR, so they deemed them non-impacted.

They are getting €1,000 each and they can avail of the 3.67% rate from now on.

PTSB discounted tracker rate

PTSB offered customers a one year discounted rate of 0.6% - the discount was 0.2%

At the end of that year, they went to 2.25% or 3.25%

They should be on 0.8%

But ptsb is sticking to its ground

Ptsb prevailing rate issue

People who broke out of a fixed rate early were given the prevailing rate of 2.25% or 3.25% - the rate they would have been on at the end of the fixed rate period.

They should have got the rate at the time they broke out early.

No news

Ulster Bank
Their update didn't contain anything

Where next for these people?
If the Central Bank doesn’t persuade the banks to do the right thing…

They will have to go to the Ombudsman or the High Court.
 

Miakk

Frequent Poster
Messages
128
I am one of the Ulster Bank “no news” group. I’ve already been through the FSO in 2011, no surprise he found in favour of the bank. What option does this leave me with, realistically?

The high court option is not a viable one for me in real terms. Plus, I meet the criteria illustrated in a couple of the examples in the CB report yesterday, so why should I (& others in the same position as me) have to be faced with this extra hurdle, not to mention the extra cost & stress of a legal challenge.
 

joestrand

Registered User
Messages
17
Does anyone know if the 900 new AIB cases refer to the cohort on the old pre Feb 2006 contract

Has anyone from this group received a change of interest rate and return to tracker rate yet
 

Lightening

Frequent Poster
Messages
319
A quote from Wim Verbraeken in the Dail end October talking about the same 571 cohort 2010

" The 2010 issue concerned a cohort of customers who had received in 2008, an offer from the bank to switch to a fixed-rate period. Initially they were scheduled to move to a variable rate at the end of that period. Prompted by the Central Bank, the bank conducted a review at the time and decided these customers would go back to their tracker rate. It was 571 customers"

A quote from KBC Statement end of October

"In a prior review concluded in 2010, the bank identified 571 customers that would have moved from a fixed rate mortgage to a standard variable rate, but based on a review of their individual circumstances, the bank concluded that these customers should return to a tracker rate following the fixed rate period. These customers had their accounts amended prior to the expiry of the fixed rate period so that they then correctly rolled to a tracker product".

In my eyes KBC have deliberately and cleverly worded the two statements above so that it covered more than one cohort giving them the opportunity to chop and change; i.e.

1)Fixed from drawdown, roll to tracker (now Private dwelling only to be impacted)
2) Tracker who fixed and accepted to go to the Standard Variable Rate. (now deemed impacted)

I believe between October and now KBC has changed the goal post. Taking from one cohort and giving to the other!. i.e. 1) above contracts however the Buy to Lets who fixed from the beginning in the Broker window have been sacrificed for the ones who had a tracker 2) above and signed the agreement to expire to Standard Variable Rate.

Yesterdays statement;
  • c. 1,907 mortgage accounts that converted from a tracker rate to another rate product post drawdown up to the period July 2008 are now identified as impacted.
  • c. 650 PDH (Private Dwelling Home) mortgage accounts are now also identified as impacted. These related to new mortgage applications in the period November 2006 to February 2008 that drew down their mortgage on a fixed rate with a roll off to a standard variable rate. While these customers were never on a tracker rate, KBC has decided to offer these PDH customers a tracker rate product if the account is still open.
It is also a fact that in 2010 one cohort was returned to a tracker, and that was the Fixed from beginning during the broker window, that expired to "lenders prevailing variable rate'. These customers were given trackers in 2010 and it was prompted by the Central Bank
 

DamC82

Frequent Poster
Messages
155
KBC customers – c.2,500

Their legal position was clear. When they signed the fixed rate agreement it said that they would lose their tracker rate. However, KBC told brokers that they would be going onto trackers

This was due to Padraig Kissane’s work in particular
No doubt, however the skeptic in me believes KBC may offer us a higher tracker rate, ala AIB, do you think theres a possibilty this will happen Brendan?
 

marchflowers

Registered User
Messages
25
Does anyone know if the 900 new AIB cases refer to the cohort on the old pre Feb 2006 contract

Has anyone from this group received a change of interest rate and return to tracker rate yet
We are in the pre-2006 AIB cohort and as yet have had no communication from them. As they have described it, you would imagine we would fall into that category but I guess it's a wait and see...
 

Lightening

Frequent Poster
Messages
319
No doubt, however the skeptic in me believes KBC may offer us a higher tracker rate, ala AIB, do you think theres a possibilty this will happen Brendan?
The very least will be the rate as specified in the broker communication.
 

moneymakeover

Frequent Poster
Messages
589
Great thread Brendan

8 years later, AIB retrospectively set the prevailing rate at higher than the SVR, so they deemed them non-impacted.

They are getting €1,000 each and they can avail of the 3.67% rate from now on
If 4000 customers put their €1000 together they could pay for a good legal team
 

ask2017

Registered User
Messages
19
Until a Letter pops through your door from KBC to specifically identify where they are putting you its impossible to know what "Tracker" you will be put back on. I drewdown on a tracker in 2004 and fixed in '07 on the "Revert to SVR" MFA for 3 years. Hoping to go back to my price promised contract tracker from 2004 - There's no letters issued yet from KBC so we'll see.
 

SadbutHopeful

Registered User
Messages
1
We are in the pre-2006 AIB cohort and as yet have had no communication from them. As they have described it, you would imagine we would fall into that category but I guess it's a wait and see...
I too am part of the pre-2006 cohort and phoned the tracker helpline this morning to see if my mortgage falls into any category identified by AIB. I was informed that they did not have details of the affected customers yet as they are still running tests. However, letters will be issued to all affected customers by March 2018. When I asked how they could have such a specific number if they were still running tests he wasn't able to answer that.
 

Pewter

Registered User
Messages
17
Hi Brendan,
The BoI staff who were on the 2 3.95% year rate that the bank itself said would roll on to the tracker seems to have been broken into ones who had ever been on tracker and those who hadn't. Those who hadn't seem to have been omitted.
It's hard to see how the journey on to the fixed rate has been so important. We all shared the same expectation (as users have demonstrated in different posts by what was on the system, the MFAs, talking to the call centre etc.) through 2008 and that's why we didn't break out.
 

todo

Frequent Poster
Messages
260
Hi Brendan,
The BoI staff who were on the 2 3.95% year rate that the bank itself said would roll on to the tracker seems to have been broken into ones who had ever been on tracker and those who hadn't. Those who hadn't seem to have been omitted.
It's hard to see how the journey on to the fixed rate has been so important. We all shared the same expectation (as users have demonstrated in different posts by what was on the system, the MFAs, talking to the call centre etc.) through 2008 and that's why we didn't break out.
I think thats the stance that BOI have taken as the main criteria for the review.

If your mortgage was ever on a tracker rate == in scope
If your mortgage was never on a tracker rate == out of scope

The thing is its not that black and white, the central bank stated to the Finance committee that all mortgages are in scope.
So I think BOI can be forced to look at mortgage if they are requested todo so, it just wont happen automatically.
 

Mauritius

Frequent Poster
Messages
129
I would say I had a good day. KBC finally posted on their website the types of cases deemed impacted. The words I've highlighted in italics are exactly what happened to me in Jan 2009:

* Update on Customer Accounts Previously Identified as Impacted
KBC had previously identified as impacted 417 mortgage accounts (note 1), that either did not roll to a tracker rate after a fixed rate period, were moved off their tracker rate following a change to the terms of their loan (such as an interest only period), or were on the incorrect tracker margin. * (from the KBC website)

KBC have phoned a few times over the last few days and intimated that I will be getting a letter 'possibly next week' - so far I have had nothing in writing. What further infuriates me is how they refer to all this an 'administrative error'.

* KBC reiterates its full acknowledgement of the errors that occurred in relation to the rate administration of the Bank’s tracker mortgages in the past. * (from the KBC website - my italics)

If this was an error of administration, why did they fight me every step of the way for the last five years, putting up a wall of impenetrable resistance? Couldn't they have seen the 'error' of their ways back then, once it was brought to their attention? This is no error. This was the biggest financial services rip-off in the history of the state and I am sure there will be criminal charges and class actions will follow.
 

Lightening

Frequent Poster
Messages
319
I would say I had a good day. KBC finally posted on their website the types of cases deemed impacted. The words I've highlighted in italics are exactly what happened to me in Jan 2009:

* Update on Customer Accounts Previously Identified as Impacted
KBC had previously identified as impacted 417 mortgage accounts (note 1), that either did not roll to a tracker rate after a fixed rate period, were moved off their tracker rate following a change to the terms of their loan (such as an interest only period), or were on the incorrect tracker margin. * (from the KBC website)

KBC have phoned a few times over the last few days and intimated that I will be getting a letter 'possibly next week' - so far I have had nothing in writing. What further infuriates me is how they refer to all this an 'administrative error'.

* KBC reiterates its full acknowledgement of the errors that occurred in relation to the rate administration of the Bank’s tracker mortgages in the past. * (from the KBC website - my italics)

If this was an error of administration, why did they fight me every step of the way for the last five years, putting up a wall of impenetrable resistance? Couldn't they have seen the 'error' of their ways back then, once it was brought to their attention? This is no error. This was the biggest financial services rip-off in the history of the state and I am sure there will be criminal charges and class actions will follow.
Delighted for you Mauritius!

John McGuinness today on the Pat Kenny Show said it was a crime! And it certainly is.

They continue to resist! Their posted cohorts impacted recently have their own selected conditions installed by KBC themselves putting time limits etc leaving out desperate cases. It's not acceptable.

I hope those unfairly deemed not impacted by
KBC will get their trackers.

I await a letter but still do not trust this bank one bit
 

Lightening

Frequent Poster
Messages
319
No doubt, however the skeptic in me believes KBC may offer us a higher tracker rate, ala AIB, do you think theres a possibilty this will happen Brendan?
No it won't happen! And it can't happen.

Aib customers had to select the tracker at the end of the fixed rate. Those that didn't are being offered the miserable 3.67 percent. (Made up tracker Rate by AIB) How AIB think they can get away with this is shocking.

KBC fixed scenario is different.
 

IdesofMarch

Frequent Poster
Messages
289
No it won't happen! And it can't happen.

Aib customers had to select the tracker at the end of the fixed rate. Those that didn't are being offered the miserable 3.67 percent. (Made up tracker Rate by AIB) How AIB think they can get away with this is shocking.

KBC fixed scenario is different.
Lightening,

Prevailing means "existing at a particular point in time; or current." If AIB's prevailing tracker rate was no longer available to new or current borrowers (i.e. no longer a publicly quoted tracker rate and readily available to borrowers), then AIB's tracker rate can be said to be no longer current or prevailing. This is the fatal flaw in AIB's stance. The contrived tracker margin of 3.67 could never be the prevailing tracker margin in the first instance as it was not available (current or prevailing).
 

Lightening

Frequent Poster
Messages
319
KBC customers – c.2,500

Their legal position was clear. When they signed the fixed rate agreement it said that they would lose their tracker rate. However, KBC brokers that they would be going onto trackers

This was due to Padraig Kissane’s work in particular
Brendan I think you are getting two of KBCs cohorts mixed up!

The fixed rate agreements whereby it stated on expiry they would roll to the Standard Variable Rate is a different cohort to those that started on a fixed rate that involved the communication to brokers and whereby brokers told them they would roll to trackers on expiry.

Both cohorts have been confirmed as impacted. (Bar buy to let's in the fixed from beginning a cohort that will now have to fight for their trackers)
 

Lightening

Frequent Poster
Messages
319
Lightening,

Prevailing means "existing at a particular point in time; or current." If AIB's prevailing tracker rate was no longer available to new or current borrowers (i.e. no longer a publicly quoted tracker rate and readily available to borrowers), then AIB's tracker rate can be said to be no longer current or prevailing. This is the fatal flaw in AIB's stance. The contrived tracker margin of 3.67 could never be the prevailing tracker margin in the first instance as it was not available (current or prevailing).
I totally agree!

A quote from Bernard Byrne AIB at the Oireachtas Committee Meeting in October.

"Our view of the prevailing rate is that it is the rate that prevails at the time at which the product is offered and that is how we consider it".


At the time "the product" was offered. I.e. Margin + ECB

ie

Margin + ECB (at time of which the product was offered plus all the ECB rate reductions since then to present day) not the rediculous rates now offered by AIB
 

IdesofMarch

Frequent Poster
Messages
289
Get this footage and send it to AIB, together with all arguments favoring the correct interpretation of prevailing tracker rate. Submit to AIB. This will be useful in any subsequent appeal to the F.S.O. or indeed the High Court. The 3.67% margin is plucked from the air and is ridiculous. It would not hold water in any court due to it's lack of transparency to the consumer with regard the original clauses foreseeability.
 
Last edited:
Top