Bank of Ireland tracker mortgage % increase

rate_hike

If I did recieve one it would of been in 08 & 09 I would of thrown it away opps, The accounts are before July 1995 that are getting off mine are 03 & 04 not that lucky.

Darrell_G

Thats not sounding too good for me then. All my portfolio is pretty much 2003-04 (pre Oct too) :-(

neverdespairgirl

Jaketake wrote: »

I think that Bank Of Ireland saw the article in the Sunday newspaper about being "illegal" and so acted upon this. The whole thing is unfair and the sooner the bank realises this the better for all. It is only a matter of time before justice will prevail.

.

I think it's most unlikely that the BoI takes its legal advice from a newspaper!

Jaketake

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I think it's most unlikely that the BoI takes its legal advice from a newspaper!

That is not what I meant. The fact that the media are onto them means that something is not right. Bank of ireland are hoping this will just go away. This is clearly not fair and unless we stand up to this and make our voice heard nothing will be done.

Not one media article is supporting their move. I am just awaiting the reply to the treasury committee. Don't really understand why it is taking so long if the second letter was sent way back in March. If this is how they behave with the treasury what hope has the little man got.

rate_hike

Gary Smith has got off got his letter to day. :j:beer:

pandersturn

Jaketake wrote: »

That is not what I meant. The fact that the media are onto them means that something is not right. Bank of ireland are hoping this will just go away. This is clearly not fair and unless we stand up to this and make our voice heard nothing will be done.

Not one media article is supporting their move. I am just awaiting the reply to the treasury committee. Don't really understand why it is taking so long if the second letter was sent way back in March. If this is how they behave with the treasury what hope has the little man got.

suspect the delay with second letter is to do with the 1200 let off think there has been some negotiating with government bodies to placate treasury committee.

Thrugelmir

Jaketake wrote: »

The fact that the media are onto them means that something is not right.

Standard of financial journalism in this country is extremely poor. Majority is just rehashed (edited down) copy from the newswire services.

pandersturn

to all those that dismissed the B.O.I complainers as having no chance because the contract was water tight, and they had such good lawyers that the contracts must be fair and legal, then the 1200 without a court hearing must regard there reversal as divine intervention a miracle because as you've said the banks are right, and your the people that think your experts good job nobody listens to you isn't it.

Thrugelmir

pandersturn wrote: »

then the 1200 without a court hearing must regard there reversal as divine intervention a miracle because as you've said the banks are right,

Appears to rest on a case of ambiguity within the wording. Rather than an unfair clause.

Downside is of course. That remaining customers will pick up the tab in some form with increased charges. As ultimately the only person who pays is the customer. Not the business.

pandersturn

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Appears to rest on a case of ambiguity within the wording. Rather than an unfair clause.

Downside is of course. That remaining customers will pick up the tab in some form with increased charges. As ultimately the only person who pays is the customer. Not the business.

yes as are all the contracts that is what people have been stating all along so you must agree that there lawyers are not infallible.