Bank of Ireland tracker mortgage % increase

rckl88

When is a lifetime BR tracker not a lifetime BR tracker?
This is a joke. Everyone is unhappy that businesses find loopholes in tax laws to abuse, well this is worse they wrote the rules and put loopholes in for themselves to abuse!

This is not a b1tching session between landlords and savers (landlords chose an investment to earn a living I chose a job), This is about an immoral loophole that changes the mortgage entirely because they priced it to get rid of borrowers!
For all you savers out there, how would you feel if you took out a tracker savings account and they pull this stunt on you?
As usual for the banks its head they win, tails we lose!

BR_Landlord

Request a copy of you T & C (B of I will change you £15) if you have not kept the leaflet (these mortgages all seem to date back 10 or so years ago). Or somewhere on this forum it suggests Land Registry may have a copy.

brit1234

The issue is simple, if you don't like the terms move to a new lender. Interest rates at 4.99% are still very low and you should be making a profit or your buy to let model is flawed.

Let hope BOI start doing good savings rates to help us savers

hightable

1. Write to the Bank of Ireland saying that you were missold the tracker mortgage because no-one told you that the differential may rise. Point out also that the wording in there documentation is neither clear nor transparent. I think the size of the increase alone is enough to win this point. Then tell them that you raise the issue with the

Thanks for this will follow to the letter!

james_toney

Imagine if all the banks did this, it would be hell for a lot of people,

JimmyTheWig

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Was it mis-sold, or did people just go along with their mortgage advisor / the best rate at the time?
...
Mis-sold suggests you don't get something you bought into.

I would say that if a customer was told that they had a "lifetime" deal but weren't told about the smallprint when it might not last for the life of the mortgage then that was mis-sold.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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?

No, I'm saying that mis-selling had to have taken place before you even start looking at the alternatives. As per the above, I think there is the potential that these mortgages were mis-sold.

My overriding point has to be, though, that for anything to come of the mis-selling, those sold to can only be put back in the position they would have been in had they not been mis-sold to. At which point you would presume they would go for the second best mortgage at the time, etc.
What I am saying is that to get compensation you need to show that (a) you were mis-sold and (b) that you would be better off now had you not been mis-sold.

hightable

I note you say that you may not affected. I have 4 BTL and a residential all set up in 1998. As of now only one has been changed. Why?

JimmyTheWig

Am trying to think of an analogy. How about this...

Salesman: Do you want to buy this £50 note for £30?
Customer: Sounds good.
Salesman: What's more, I'll give you another £50 in six months time.
Customer: Yes please. Where do I sign.
[Salesman chuckles to himself that there is a clause in the contract that he hasn't mentioned which means the customer might not get the next £50 in six months time.]
Customer signs and buys a £50 note for £30.
Six months later it turns out the customer won't be getting his second £50. He has been mis-sold. The salesman should be told off.
The customer is, theoretically, due compensation. He isn't entitled to the second £50 that was never actually due. But he is entitled to be put back in the position as if the deal never happened. He is allowed, then, to get his £30 back and give back the £50 that he bought.
In this instance, however, the customer isn't going to want to do this so the mis-selling results in no compensation for the customer. Customer still got a good deal, just not _as_ good as he thought he was going to get.

hightable

I joined the forum as a newbie to contribute. I see this as another example of the rules being changed because they can be. I entered into what I thought was a simple relationship a tracker for life at X + Y where Y was 1.75%. The risk I took was Y the premium I paid was 1.75. I was a teacher for 30 years I paid for a pension which would be raised by RPI this was changed by the bullies to CPI. It fails all moral standards. This is very dangerous behaviour and one that if reflected across society leads to difficult times.

Beej_1973

brit1234 wrote: »

The issue is simple, if you don't like the terms move to a new lender. Interest rates at 4.99% are still very low and you should be making a profit or your buy to let model is flawed.

Let hope BOI start doing good savings rates to help us savers

Your right, I could go and get a new mortgage...... and that would be cheaper than what has been offered. However that would be letting companies renage on contracts at will

This is the same as betting on a horse 5-1, and watching the race and your horse coming in as the winner. Then when you go to collect your winnings. The bookmaker turning round and saying, sorry, I didnt like the result of that race, so I have changed the odds to 2-1.......

If your happy for people to renage on contracts on you....good luck......