Bank of Ireland tracker mortgage % increase

BR_Landlord

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ignorance

I am new and have no previous experience in forums but I looked at who is thanking who and suspect leveller2911 is Graham_Devon and maybe brit1234 as well, and Thrug has a best friend, contrary to the cruel accusation – his best mate is re-wired who thanks him for every single comment.
The sockies are under the bridge but the three billy goats have already crossed.

JimmyTheWig

Darrell_G wrote: »

the Bank of Ireland has either mis-sold or mis-led me into a product

If they and/or the ombudsman agrees with you on this, what do you hope to happen to you personally?
Do you realise that where mis-selling happens all that you end up with is being put back in the position you were in if the mis-selling hadn't have happened?
Do you think that you would be better off, now, if you had chosen a different mortgage?

Until a fair & satisfactory solution is arrived at, I do not authorise Bank of Ireland to collect via direct debit anything other than the current original amounts from my bank account

If they follow your request then I think this will get you in serious trouble.

leveller2911

BR_Landlord wrote: »

I am new and have no previous experience in forums but I looked at who is thanking who and suspect leveller2911 is Graham_Devon and maybe brit1234 as well, and Thrug has a best friend, contrary to the cruel accusation – his best mate is re-wired who thanks him for every single comment.
The sockies are under the bridge but the three billy goats have already crossed.

Graham is far too clever to be me, I'm not quick enough to post from 2 different accounts at the same time from 2 different PC's and I live in East Sussex and Graham lives in Devon (logical thinking) so theres no way I'm travelling down there to post on his PC.

People click the "Thanks" button if they find the post in question interesting and some click it to show their agreement.

Trolls don't tend to have thousands of "Thanks" either..;)

Darrell_G

Thanks Graham, This is just my initial complaint to get the ball rolling, with plenty of angles. Im not a legal eagle & will need to take further advice. From what im hearing on various web Forums & national media reports, the route may well be unfair Rate rise &/or Mis-selling? Any comments welcome if I'm barking up the wrong tree?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If you are going to threaten going to court Darrell, it may be wise to state why and what you intend to prosecute the BOI for. Otherwise it just looks like another threat without much substance.

Graham_Devon

Darrell_G wrote: »

Thanks Graham, This is just my initial complaint to get the ball rolling, with plenty of angles. Im not a legal eagle & will need to take further advice. From what im hearing on various web Forums & national media reports, the route may well be unfair Rate rise &/or Mis-selling? Any comments welcome if I'm barking up the wrong tree?

I'd do some proper research if I were you. A complaint letter is fine, but the threat showed (at least to me) to be nothing more than that.

I feel you are barking up the wrong tree. Think about this, BOI has it's own legal advisors, and theres very little scope they would have done this without legal advice prior. FSA has already agreed to it (according to some who have phoned to complain). Again, I can't see the BOI point blank lying and telling customers the FSA has agreed if they haven't...again, I can't see BOI being quite that stupid.

So you are up against legal teams and the FSA in my view.

Not that I'm saying you won't get anyway, just saying if so far, all the complaints from all the different people over 3 days hasn't come to anything concrete to prosecute, it doesn't sound good. These people include BTL businessmen and women.

If mortgage advisors and spokespeople for the council of mortgage lenders also can't offer anything to prosecute on, again, it doesn't look good.

People are angry, this is understandable. But many seem to be going on a wing and a prayer here. No one, not even legal advisors have so far said the BOI has broken any agreements.

Personally I'd go from there. People seem to be basing their threats on hope at the moment.

I'm a Halifax customer. Halifax was able to ADD to the terms mid product, with the FSA's blessing. It was going to go to court, but Halifax got out of that by offering a goodwill payment to the customers it effected. They then proceeded to charge the higher rate. This was an addition to the terms.

You guys are moving from a point where your complaint was actuallycovered by the terms. You are also up against the fact that 2 other banks have already succcessfully and legally implemented this on their customers.

Theres little hope of stopping it or prosecuting over it. The only hope is to prosecute on something else that someone finds probably unrelated to this in the mortgage.

At the end of all that, if you do successfully prosecute, the only thing you will get is compensation to put you in the position you would have been should you not have taken this mortgage and took another. Theres very little scope for any betterment considering you've been on such low rates and reeping the rewards.

jalfrezi

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'd do some proper research if I were you. A complaint letter is fine, but the threat showed (at least to me) to be nothing more than that.

I feel you are barking up the wrong tree. Think about this, BOI has it's own legal advisors, and theres very little scope they would have done this without legal advice prior. FSA has already agreed to it (according to some who have phoned to complain). Again, I can't see the BOI point blank lying and telling customers the FSA has agreed if they haven't...again, I can't see BOI being quite that stupid.

So you are up against legal teams and the FSA in my view.

In my letter and brochure, , it refers a couple of times to the FSA saying that the FSA are aware.
Don't confuse "Are Aware! with "In Agreement".

I have scanned my original offer letter from Bristol and West (from 2001) and yes, it does have a clause which allows them to increase the differential

We will only increase the differential under this paragraph if we believe the increase is necessary to maintain the viability of our businessfollwoing a serious adverse change in market conditions or in the relationship between the base rate and the rate at which we pay on the funds we raise for use in our mortgage lending business.

JimmyTheWig

Graham_Devon wrote: »

At the end of all that, if you do successfully prosecute, the only thing you will get is compensation to put you in the position you would have been should you not have taken this mortgage and took another. Theres very little scope for any betterment considering you've been on such low rates and reeping the rewards.

Exactly.
Saying that you didn't know about this clause doesn't mean that they can't impliment it.
It just means they will ask the question "what would you have done if you _did_ know about this clause?".

motch

BR_Landlord wrote: »

I am new and have no previous experience in forums but I looked at who is thanking who and suspect leveller2911 is Graham_Devon and maybe brit1234 as well, and Thrug has a best friend, contrary to the cruel accusation – his best mate is re-wired who thanks him for every single comment.
The sockies are under the bridge but the three billy goats have already crossed.

I'll have whatever you're having..

disposalist

For me, even after all the to-ing and fro-ing of opinions here, there is a point that still makes this a fight worth pursuing, I think: -

Even if (a big if) customers were given all the related documents and and understood all the legal implications and banking conditions that might lead to this situation, there is still a requirement for BoI to Treat Customers Fairly.

Suddenly doubling tracker payments is not a fair act, no matter what the justification.

BoI claim they need the money because of the curent banking-created banking problems. It's also because of banking problems that the Treating Customers Fairly requirements came about.

Surely, they shouldn't be able to have it both ways?

I'm not sure there's a case for being mis-sold or mis-lead, but there is one for being treated unfairly? I'm hoping BoI can be made to pursue this in a more fair way: -

- Delay the action for more time so people have adequate time to move elsewhere or, for the many (majority?) that can't, prepare for the effects of the cost increase.
- Introduce the rise on a gradual scale over perhaps a year so the effect is not so potentially devastating.
- land at a rate that is more competitive or offer a range of new products as if new customers.

Another thing that has surprised me over this issue is the lack of concern by others. It's clear there no sympathy for "landlord" as an occupation, but this isn't just BTL landlords being ruined; 'normal' folks already hard-pushed these days are going to lose their homes from a sudden doubling of mortgage payments.

Even if there's no sympathy for those effected, isn't everyone else worried that once BoI have gotten away with this, then all banks will have a green light to get their legal teams looking for ways to screw their customers?

motch

rckl88 wrote: »

HUH??? I thought this is about an underhanded action by a bank because they need more money!

Why do people keep bringing up landlords? This affects residential and BTL mortgages! I'm sure a lot of customers took this mortgage prepared for what happens with rate rises! They took this mortgage preparing for falls and rises pegged to the BR at a particular rate (like it says on the tin i.e. 1.75%+BR for term of contract)! A fair rate might I add, where the bank made a nice easy profit!

What they are not prepared for is an additional 2-3% to bail out the bank because they cocked it all up.

Personally I took out this mortgage prepared for whatever happens to the BR which I expect to rise in more than a years time maybe 3...

For general info: Please note not everyone is affected, from what I've gather by reading posts and articles those affected have accounts from before 2001 approximately.

Yes that's correct it's for BTL Landlord/s and Residential mortgages. The thing is with the BTL it's a business and personally for me if I was to go into a business I'd double/treble check everything, and make sure i'd have a plan B, C etc
It's probably one to get your solicitor onto.
Perhaps it's just me being over careful if investing 10's or 100's of thousands into a Business.

With the last bit about affecting the pre 2001 mortgages, surely anyone who bought a BTL in the 90's must have a huge equity in the property today?