Bank of Ireland tracker mortgage % increase

GMS

If the mortgage documentation refers to any booklet/addendum/leaflet containing mortgage T&C's then BOI will argue they were clearly read and understood or the borrower would not have completed and/or would have requested a copy if it wasn't present.

smiffy

Graham_Devon wrote: »

BOI have already announced that the FSA has given the go ahead for this.

It's mentioned in this thread, but seemingly no one wants to know.

It's been mentioned on here, but I've not seen this confirmed anywhere else. (Guardian, FT, Telegraph, BBC or online)

They (BOI) weren't able to provide anyone to comment on the BBC Money Box program.

The FSA also have yet to make any official comments that I've seen quoted anywhere.

Graham_Devon

smiffy wrote: »

It's been mentioned on here, but I've not seen this confirmed anywhere else. (Guardian, FT, Telegraph, BBC or online)

They (BOI) weren't able to provide anyone to comment on the BBC Money Box program.

The FSA also have yet to make any official comments that I've seen quoted anywhere.

Well, no. Probably because it's the weekend.

Is that your article on the guardian? Only I'm struck by the lack of backup in the comments on that article. Even guardian readers by and large appear not to be against the bank in this case. Surprising for the Guardian! Certainly, bar those effected themselves, there doesn't seem to be many comments supporting your "right" fight this and try to continue to pay at a lower rate than is needed by the bank.

BR_Landlord

GMS wrote: »

If the mortgage documentation refers to any booklet/addendum/leaflet containing mortgage T&C's then BOI will argue they were clearly read and understood or the borrower would not have completed and/or would have requested a copy if it wasn't present.

That's an interesting point. I don't think it would hold up in Court.
Lets assume that no-one got this leaflet:
If 13,500 borrowers did not request a copy of the Terms & Conditions separate leaflet (and here I will add that my solicitor and Mortgage Broker also failed to notice the absence of the enclosure which means 13,500 can be extrapolated to 40,500 different people looking at the Offer paperwork) then one could argue against that view.

Pobinr

GMS wrote: »

If the mortgage documentation refers to any booklet/addendum/leaflet containing mortgage T&C's then BOI will argue they were clearly read and understood or the borrower would not have completed and/or would have requested a copy if it wasn't present.

If you read my post you will see the Terms & conditions booklet is not included on the list of documents on the Mortgage offer & not one person has been able to find their copy of the booklet. Consequently I do not see how BOI could possibly prove that people received it.
In the booklet I have for my further advance, thus showing I tend not to throw such important docs out, (6m) says they can only change the differential if in my favour.
No one can convince me that there was a hypothetical booklet that no one it seems actually ever received & in which (6m) means the complete opposite of what it does in the booklet dated 2007 that I received with my further advance in 2008.
BOI have no case in my view.

Graham_Devon

BR_Landlord wrote: »

That's an interesting point. I don't think it would hold up in Court.
Lets assume that no-one got this leaflet:
If 13,500 borrowers did not request a copy of the Terms & Conditions separate leaflet (and here I will add that my solicitor and Mortgage Broker also failed to notice the absence of the enclosure which means 13,500 can be extrapolated to 40,500 different people looking at the Offer paperwork) then one could argue against that view.

The lack of documentation (unless requested) is the same for most contracts.

When taking a credit card, you get references to full terms, which are available on request. It's not only better for the environment, it reduces costs, which can be passed on to the customer.

We' be inundated with paperwork for every transaction we undertook by your theory here. If you had the chance to request it, theres very little hope that any court would say the bank was in the wrong here.

If you are saying there never was such a booklet, that's a different matter. However, I doubt this to be the case. Can't see BOI taking on such a suicide mission in trying to implement terms which never existed.

GMS

BR_Landlord wrote: »

That's an interesting point. I don't think it would hold up in Court.
Lets assume that no-one got this leaflet:
If 13,500 borrowers did not request a copy of the Terms & Conditions separate leaflet (and here I will add that my solicitor and Mortgage Broker also failed to notice the absence of the enclosure which means 13,500 can be extrapolated to 40,500 different people looking at the Offer paperwork) then one could argue against that view.

If a solicitor failed to notice it then they would be negligent.

I am in no way defending the actions of the lender just thinking of their answer to accusations of no paperwork as has been mentioned in the thread.

Pobinr

BR_Landlord wrote: »

That's an interesting point. I don't think it would hold up in Court.
Lets assume that no-one got this leaflet:
If 13,500 borrowers did not request a copy of the Terms & Conditions separate leaflet (and here I will add that my solicitor and Mortgage Broker also failed to notice the absence of the enclosure which means 13,500 can be extrapolated to 40,500 different people looking at the Offer paperwork) then one could argue against that view.

Borrowers wouldn't even know about the terms & conditions booklet as it's not in the list of docs on the mortgage offer so therefore no one would be likely to have requested the booklet.
As you say I don't think BOI case will stand up in court. I just wonder if we need to start a group action to share legal costs.
Having said that. I've not even had letters from BOI yet. But I may well of course.

BR_Landlord

GMS wrote: »

If a solicitor failed to notice it then they would be negligent.

I am in no way defending the actions of the lender just thinking of their answer to accusations of no paperwork as has been mentioned in the thread.

No I realise that.

Pobinr

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The lack of documentation (unless requested) is the same for most contracts.

Not according to miss selling precedents.
Imagine if anyone could say - Well you never asked for all of the contract & the bit you never asked for says you must sign over your entire worldly wealth to me plus let me marry your lovely daughter. I mean your suggestion is absurd & would render contract law meaningless. You cannot be serious.