Bank of Ireland tracker mortgage % increase

disposalist

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

If you come out worse off then I think you've got a case.

I'm answering people who aren't talking to me and I'm sorry about that, but you're making me annoyed, Jimmy. I don't think you're being helpful and you're not making much sense either.

What difference does it make whether or not he might have bought a slightly worse deal if he didn't get the BoI mortgage?

BoI got the business because of the deal they offered. They are now breaking that deal, whatever the smallprint excuse they are using, and they aren't even trying to be gentle because they expect to get away with it.

If I get mugged, I'm not going to think "Oh, well, there's lots of occassions I've *not* been mugged, so I'm doing well on average" or even "well that guy down the street has been mugged 3 times, so I should whistle a happy tune".

When walking down the street, as with when buying a mortgage product, the fair expectation is to *not* be robbed.

disposalist

ILW wrote: »

Stop whining.

I will. I've vented my spleen now. I do hope other people seeking help and advice in this forum when obviously upset and aggrieved don't get quite such a response normally though.

saxmanjc

I am reading the Moneysavingexpert Guide to Remortgaging. I see this document is written on the understanding that lifetime tracker mortgages guarantee to track the base rate.


Martin Lewis guide sponsored by London & Country mortgages;

Unlike the SVR, a tracker usually follows the base rate absolutely. So if rates go up by 1%, your mortgage payment goes up by 1%. But if it falls by the same amount then your mortgage will drop by the full 1% as well. However, some products also have what’s called a “collar” – a minimum level below which the rate will not drop. This was first enforced towards the end of 2008. Some had a 2.75% or 3% collar which meant once base rate fell below these levels their
trackers stopped falling in price.
Lenders can also offer “lifetime trackers” which guarantee to follow the base rate for the length of your mortgage.

I just make this point because it is a bit ironic to see this document clearly stating the assumption we all made when we took out our lifetime trackers. My mortgage is a residential mortgage and I always thought that a lifetime tracker mortgage did guarantee to follow the base rate. It is clear now that the lifetime tracker offers no guarantee at all. Surely this is miss-selling.

JimmyTheWig

disposalist wrote: »

What difference does it make whether or not he might have bought a slightly worse deal if he didn't get the BoI mortgage?

Because that is how, I believe, the ombudsman will look at it if it is mis-sold.

ILW

saxmanjc wrote: »

I am reading the Moneysavingexpert Guide to Remortgaging. I see this document is written on the understanding that lifetime tracker mortgages guarantee to track the base rate.


Martin Lewis guide sponsored by London & Country mortgages;
I just make this point because it is a bit ironic to see this document clearly stating the assumption we all made when we took out our lifetime trackers. My mortgage is a residential mortgage and I always thought that a lifetime tracker mortgage did guarantee to follow the base rate. It is clear now that the lifetime tracker offers no guarantee at all. Surely this is miss-selling.

Martin Lewis did also recommend investing in Icelandic banks. So not all his advice is 100%.

Graham_Devon

disposalist wrote: »

I've never heard of anything being to flagrantly mis-sold as a base-rate tracker that changes 100+% when the base-rate is static! Whatever the small print is, this is just financial abuse.

Was it mis-sold, or did people just go along with their mortgage advisor / the best rate at the time? Maybe they went for it because they couldn't get the same deal elsewhere?

Mis-sold suggests you don't get something you bought into.

As you bought into a contract which stiupulates that with 30 days notice they can move away from the base rate, you weren't mis-sold. You got exactly what you bought.

What I'm sensing is people don't quite understand how this could wipe people out. Even with the hike it's a lot cheaper than anyone can get buying in today. It's also probably based on interest only, making it again much cheaper than anyone could get today. People have had a very good run, but it's difficult to feel sympathy for this wiping people out and people then moaning they have been mis-sold. For those who have lost their jobs, there is true sympathy. But how many is that amongst the landlords here!?

I understand the anger. Who wouldn't be angry or put out? I just don't understand the mis-selling thing or how people haven't allowed for base rates rising just 2-3% from an all time low. If people didn't understand what they were getting into...that's not a mis-sale. You got the product you signed up to....including the rises.

Graham_Devon

disposalist wrote: »

Makes me laugh when people roll their eyes at folks who take on enormous mortgages they can't afford.

Banks had a reputation up until a few years ago (ie. when those mortgages were being marketed and sold) as establishments you could trust. Why would anyone question a bank employee telling you they will give you five times your salary on a mortgage with no deposit or replayment element? Bank staff are to be trusted and they know 'money stuff' better than us, no?

It's only the last few years we've realised they are just as bad as the gangster money-lender down the pub. But on a bigger scale.

Again - have some flaming sympathy and realise it'll be you next.

I can't believe you are being serious here.

Bookies know gambling....do you trust a bookie absolutely and do whatever they say is best for you?!

Thrugelmir

disposalist wrote: »

And not everyone with a BTL mortgage is a professional landlord. Some of us were advised when needing to move but the property market was low, that it made good financial sense to rent the place out and, hey, here's a good tracker mortgage for you!

Professional or not. You are running a business. So you are responsible for any decisions made.

People have become infatuated with the easy money from owning property. As the saying goes if it seems too good to be true it probably is.

Graham_Devon

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Because that is how, I believe, the ombudsman will look at it if it is mis-sold.

Doesn't your theory assume thaty anyone who has ever been sold a mortgage could put a claim in several years later when they find out they have paid more than another mortgage?

So say for instance I took a fixed rate 5 year mortgage, and found I was paying higher than if I had took a 2 year fixed rate mortgage 3 years down the line...

You are suggesting, it seems, that there would be a case for compensation? Which sounds a bit weird, as there would be so much compensation due to everyone out there with a mortgage (or any credit card, insurance, shares, whatever).

disposalist

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I can't believe you are being serious here.

Bookies know gambling....do you trust a bookie absolutely and do whatever they say is best for you?!

Lol. Er. Bankers were looked up to as trusted pillars of the community.
No, I'm not suggesting bookies would or should be trusted in the same way.

I was exaggerating a bit with the 5x mortgage and whatnot, but there's a reason there is strict regulation for banking. There are a *lot* of people needing/holding mortgages out there and if the banks are going to start shafting people left-right-and-centre, the whole system will collapse. Again.

Big surprise: the public are a bit !!!!less and need protecting. It didn't used to be, in the good old days, that they needing protecting from bankers, though...

Without trust, banking is in trouble. I can't believe the FSA, government etc. allow this kind of thing. Hopefully they won't.

To draw another parallel to the betting shop: if you made a bet at 10:1 and won and the booky decided "actually, a lot of people made that bet so we'll pay out at 5:1" how would you feel?

Perhaps suggesting that banks were/are trustworthy was too much, but certainly, they must be seen to abide by regulation and keep to their deals, no?