Bank of Ireland tracker mortgage % increase

JimmyTheWig

chucknorris wrote: »

But under certain exceptional circumstances (as the mortgage lender is citing) in the scenario that you have flagged up, it would be acceptable for the bookmaker to pay you only £3 (i.e. equivalent of 2/1):

You stake £1 on a horse 'B' at 5/1 in the following race:

8/13 horse A
5/1 horse B
10/1 horse C
16/1 horse D
20/1horse E
20/1horse F

After you place your bet horse ‘A’ is withdrawn and under Tattersall’s rules 4 the deduction would be 60p in the £ on your winnings (not stake). So your return would be £3 which is equivalent to 2/1.

A great analogy, well done.
I would argue here that if the punter didn't know about rule 4 then they would feel miffed.
I would also argue that if the punter didn't know about rule 4 then the bet was mis-sold. As such they retain the right to cancel the bet, thus getting their £1 stake back (but not keeping their £3 winnings).

JimmyTheWig

Beej_1973 wrote: »

Personally I based my investment on interest rates going up to 10%.

Good to hear that some people did. Means you aren't one of the ones who are saying that this increase is going to break them.

This is not about what the interstest rate is, this is about changing the rules, because it suits them. IT IS UNETHICAL....

I agree.

surley this falls into the camp of mis-selling.

I possibly agree. If the smallprint wasn't made clear then I think you have a point.
But what do you expect to get out of proving that you were mis-sold to? Mis-selling doesn't mean they have to give you what you thought you were buying. It means they have to put you back in the position you would have been in had you not been mis-sold.
As you have said that you have made good money from this, I'm not sure that this is going to put you in a better place than you are now.

If the products is sold on thetracking the bank of England base rate +1%.......then that is what should happen........

For me its not about whether I am making a profit or not, I am making very good money thank you, its all about renaging on the key selling point of the agreement, if the market had gone the other way and they were making additional money, they would not have let me renage on the contract......

I guess those arguing the other way are not effected.......but if the bank of ireland get away this......then you can bet your bottom dollar that the other banks will folloe....and perhaps then if you are effected....your view point will change

I agree. I completely agree.
But the way to address it isn't the mis-selling angle. I don't think that can get you anywhere.
Ultimately their clause was in the small print. They would win in court.
All you can do is make as big a stink about the issue as you can.
By all means complain to the bank.
Write to your MP.
Write to the papers. Do what you can to keep the issue in the news.

The bad publicity might mean that the bank change their mind. It might, at least, mean that they or others will think twice before pulling another stunt like this again.

chucknorris

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

A great analogy, well done.
I would argue here that if the punter didn't know about rule 4 then they would feel miffed.
I would also argue that if the punter didn't know about rule 4 then the bet was mis-sold. As such they retain the right to cancel the bet, thus getting their £1 stake back (but not keeping their £3 winnings).

Thanks, the numbers actually all work, correct deduction for the withdrawn horse and a reasonable market profit assumed for the number of runners.

They can't actually claim it was miss-sold, those are the actual rules. Although I must add another of Tattersall’s rules is that a bet can only be cancelled by mutual consent, which I would have always agreed to under these circumstances, but only before the race has started of course.

You can't cancel the bet afterwards because obviously no one who had backed the winner would cancel, which would leave the bookmaker with a loss locked in.

EDIT: ps their winnings would only be £2 plus their stake of £1 = £3

ThePsychologistIsIn

It appears to me that these loans were sold as 'FIXED trackers' and BOI should have drawn customers attention to the fact that the term FIXED could at some later date not mean that. i.e: 'Fixed* tracker' with a description of why fixed is followed by an asterix. This also should have been verbally explained to customers when they took these loans out. I am no legal expert (no doubt someone will point that out at some point!) but I strongly believe that there is a very good case here for people to claim that these loans were mis-sold under the misapprehension that they were fixed when in fact the bank could change them at their own discretion and this was not evidently clear. Thankfully I am not a BOI customer but I firmly believe that they should fight this underhand and greedy action tooth and nail. If BOI gets away with it the other banks will soon jump on the bandwagon, mark my words they will all be watching this with greedy eyes.

Beej_1973

interestingthought wrote: »

I really don’t understand the fuss..

These customers that this has affected were paying a fraction of what was considered as 'average' this customer’s were on 2.25% if not less. The average rate is 4-5% with all banks and buildings societies.

As far as i can see this is nothing but fair, especially for the BTL customers who are the ones that are no doubt making money on letting their properties out.

Unfortunately you don’t get something for nothing in this world, and if the majority of people are paying 4-5% on their mortgages it should be fair that everyone else does to. Not just the 'lucky' ones who have managed to undercut the banks.

This is not about whether we have a good deal or not, Personally I am currently paying a mere 1.5% interest. I know its a good deal, thats why I chose it. I also chose to take a product that was linked to the bank on England base rate. This was the key reason for purchase, as a bank can change its own variable rate at any time. This was meant to take this issue away.....

The problem is here that the are renaging on what was agreed, it fairly irrelevant they are in financial trouble, Equally this would it be as irrelevant, if I were in financial trouble and the bank of England rate had gone the other way.

The financial ombudsman will look into whether this was a fair clause, given that the clause states they can basically change the tracker for any reason they want, Im sure will be seen as un un-reaonable clause, when the main benefit of this product is that it track the bank of England....... What is the point of having a bank of England base rate tracker at a fixed %, if they are allowed to change the % it tracks by

If they advertised this as a bank of England base rate tracker, and instrad of advertising a BOE + 1%, the advertised that tracker rate was variable by the bank discetion, then fair enough......but they didnt......and that is not what I signed up for.

smiffy

jobdone1 wrote: »

With all due respect, But surely you should not be purchasing a property that you will not be able to pay for if rates go to a VERY LOW 3.99% what happens when the bank of England raise rates and the average rate on offer is say 5%.

I just don't understand some people

I think you're missing the point. Bank or Ireland is hiking my interest rate by as much as twelve Bank of England Base Rate (0.25%) rises in one go. I'm sure if your rate jumped by 3.99% overnight you’d be shocked too.

For clarity when I took out the mortgage in 2004 the Bank of England Base Rate was at 4.25% it rose to 5.75% in July 2007. This was a gradual change, and this is how I would have expected my current payment to increase too. Not in a giant leap.

JimmyTheWig

ThePsychologistIsIn wrote: »

I strongly believe that there is a very good case here for people to claim that these loans were mis-sold

And what good do you think it would do them if it was found that they were mis-sold?

ThePsychologistIsIn

That the clause which allows the Bank to break its contract is invalid because it was hidden and not obvious to anyone outside a leading legal firm. As I said in my posting I'm no legal expert but it appears to me that the Bank made a bet with these people found out it was a losing one and is now trying to welch on it.

smiffy

ThePsychologistIsIn wrote: »

That the clause which allows the Bank to break its contract is invalid because it was hidden and not obvious to anyone outside a leading legal firm.

Is this just personal opinion or based on another case?

Bobilar

smiffy wrote: »

Is this just personal opinion or based on another case?

As a new user I can't post links, however I think that in 2008 Halifax were prevented from activating a collar they had on tracker mortgages as they didn't mention it in the key facts illustration.

The following quote is from the Telegraph, a googler search should turn it up:

If it is not in the KFI, Mr Boulger said, there is precedent that the change will not be allowed. Halifax had a "collar" on its mortgages that meant it could stop its tracker mortgages falling in line with Bank Rate once it hit 2.75pc. However, mention of the collar had been dropped from the key facts document for Halifax mortgages in 2004. The Financial Services Authority (FSA) said that although collars and floors could be legitimate, they needed to be "clear and unambiguous".