Bank of Ireland tracker mortgage % increase

Denise2007

TTRTR wrote: »

I've been in a legal case fighting my fathers house willed to a nurse known to the family on his deathbed.

It's been running 3.5 yrs now, half the estate is gone in fees, we've barely had a day in court and although we're near to settled, each and every decision seems to prompt more fees and delay.

With this in mind if my own mortgages were affected by something like this, I'd probably want to move on to another lender or even sell up to avoid the lawyers.

As a long term landlord I find it hard to believe anything bought in the early 2000's couldn't be mortgages for under 60% LTV today, which is where the bet rates are.

Only this morning I got an Emily from a broker mentioning a 60% LTV btl loan at under 3% apr.

Am really sorry to hear about your legal problems and hope everything is resolved for you soon.

I agree with your comment about the lawyers and your surprise on people saying they have difficulty remortgaging and their LTV high. I can only assume some landlords have not being making capital repayments and probably borrowed on the equity.

I am also impacted by this decision on one of my buy to let mortgages. I bought the property for 120,000 in 2001, mortgage now outstanding is 70,000 and property worth 250,000. Rent in 2001 was 600 and now 1,300. My mortgage payments including capital in 2001 were approx 770, my repayments now are 560, going on the increased rate will take them back up approx. 700 so less than what i was paying in 2001. Most landlords should be in a similar position and can completely understand that people would have limited sympathy for us landlords. Although I think being a landlord is a lot harder than people think but that's another story !

I will now have to remortgage but do not expect to have any difficulty. I am absolutely not paying legal fees for a class action where they have not yet determined if they have a case. I think that fact alone says a lot .....

Thrugelmir

Beej_1973 wrote: »

even if it is a bitter and twisted one

Then put me on ignore. Easy enough to do. Alternatively debate in an grown up fashion.

Hobby

Denise2007 wrote: »

Am really sorry to hear about your legal problems and hope everything is resolved for you soon.

I agree with your comment about the lawyers and your surprise on people saying they have difficulty remortgaging and their LTV high. I can only assume some landlords have not being making capital repayments and probably borrowed on the equity.

I am also impacted by this decision on one of my buy to let mortgages. I bought the property for 120,000 in 2001, mortgage now outstanding is 70,000 and property worth 250,000. Rent in 2001 was 600 and now 1,300. My mortgage payments including capital in 2001 were approx 770, my repayments now are 560, going on the increased rate will take them back up approx. 700 so less than what i was paying in 2001. Most landlords should be in a similar position and can completely understand that people would have limited sympathy for us landlords. Although I think being a landlord is a lot harder than people think but that's another story !

I will now have to remortgage but do not expect to have any difficulty. I am absolutely not paying legal fees for a class action where they have not yet determined if they have a case. I think that fact alone says a lot .....

Unless I am very much mistaken , I think you will find that no one is forcing you to do so.

Thrugelmir

Hobby wrote: »

Unless I am very much mistaken , I think you will find that no one is forcing you to do so.

Will require a considerable number of people to provide a sufficient fighting fund with which to take matters forward.

Hobby

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Will require a considerable number of people to provide a sufficient fighting fund with which to take matters forward.

No it won't , lawyers are dirt cheap these days.

cs1800

jamesd wrote: »

That opinion piece appears to summarise a key issue very well:

"We will only increase the differential under this paragraph if we believe the increase is necessary to maintain the viability of our business"

"BoI explains its UK mortgage business is strong and not in any financial difficulty"

So BoI is at one point claiming that it is at new risk of insolvency - a non-viable business - and at another claiming that it is not.

BoI does have alternative approaches available. It can do as some other lenders have done and offer financial incentives to those with unprofitable or undesirably risky mortgages to leave, instead of using a punitive interest rate. That would be expected to cause those who can leave economically to do so, leaving those who have some disadvantaged position remaining and protected by the FSA rules about mortgage prisoners.

Thrugelmir, the plain language of the contract is about viability of the business and that implies a clear, imminent and provable risk to solvency that can only be addressed by making a major change to the product terms. Merely being unprofitable for some loans isn't a failure of viability for a business. So I wonder how many more months the bank can surrvive without becoming insolvent if this change is not made. A consumer lawyer's opinion is perhaps more than simply personal opinion.

I think this is the way forward. I have just had a conversation with the BOI asking them to explain the principle meaning of clause 6(m) and the guy read the main point that clearly states they can increase the differential if it is necessary to maintain the viability of the business. My question to him was if the FSA forced the BOI to revert the change would that seriously affect the viability of the bank. After a period of silence and a chat to hit mate he said he couldn't answer my question. I then asked if he would write to accept that I had made my complaint on these grounds he again said he couldn't he was only prepared to write to say that I had made a complaint and that it would be dealt with. With regards to not seeing a copy of the residential mortgage he said it was made available to the solicitor, this I disputed. Will be interesting to see what sort of reply I get.

cs1800

The BOI refused to acknowledge my question as to whether the Bank would be viable if they did not make the differential changes. The thrust of clause 6(m) says that changes would only be made if they believed the increase was necessary to maintain the viability of the bank. The FSO have now written to the BOI on my behalf asking them the simple the question for me, this being, If the BOI is forced to abandon these changes will this mean the bank will not be able to maintain its viability.

There are basically two answers to this yes or no, it is hard to believe they would say yes and if the answer is no then how can they change the rate.

So I say to all the BOI executives who are reading this forum you had better come up with an alternative to yes or no.

astrobop

There is only one way to tackle Bank of Ireland and that is in their pocket. I encourage all of us to rant and rage at the fact that BOI now sell their products under the Post Office brand.

The less people that buy Post Office mortgages, savings and credit cards the more pressure they are going to be under to treat their existing UK customers with respect

TTRTR_2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Will require a considerable number of people to provide a sufficient fighting fund with which to take matters forward.

Not only a fighting fund but people will either have to cough up the interest or will have to suffer boi ruining their credit rating while the case is pending.

Unfortunately big organisations and govt do have us all over a barrel despite their endless new ideas on how to make it possible for the individual to stand up to big business.

You might end up paying the interest AND the lawyers too. Ouch.

So if you can remortgage away you might be best off that way. Also higher interest payments = less tax, so the honest btls won't pay the raw numbers, they'll pay the after tax numbers.

I am on the borrowers side here, both btl and OO's, nevertheless lawyers love a good fight as they're the only ones guaranteed to win.

Maybe collectively we as borrowers will have to take it on the chin and I'm sure that clause won't be let through again.

jamesd

Denise2007 wrote: »

I think BOI are having difficulty and will have no problem proving this in court.

Not sure they will want to, though. Banks usually want to claim the opposite.

Denise2007 wrote: »

The solicitor who reviewed the contract terms in property 118 advised they could satisfy all points.

That was one of the contract types, a Bristol and West one. In that form there's a clause saying they can do it if their cost of funding changes, without the viability criterion. But there are other contract types so it'll be interesting to see view on them.

Denise2007 wrote: »

They've reported a 2bn loss for 2012 and looking to make redundancies per the irish independent today.

Tough times continue for them, no surprise there and no surprise that they would be trying to push to the limits of what contracts let them do.

It is hard to believe that they really can't get depositor funding at 5% or less, though. That's well above the usual savings rate on term deposit accounts here and they should be able to get a lot of business at between 3 and 4%. Since that's below the rate they are proposing for their mortgage customers it'll be interesting to know their reasoning for not doing it or charging well above what they can get from deposits.

cs1800 wrote: »

and the guy read the main point that clearly states they can increase the differential if it is necessary to maintain the viability of the business. My question to him was if the FSA forced the BOI to revert the change would that seriously affect the viability of the bank. After a period of silence and a chat to hit mate he said he couldn't answer my question. I then asked if he would write to accept that I had made my complaint on these grounds he again said he couldn't he was only prepared to write to say that I had made a complaint and that it would be dealt with.

Don't let them get away with hiding any basis for your complaint. The clause requires the business to be non-viable so insist on them proving it and explaining why they are both invoking a non-viability clause and at the same time saying that the business does not have financial difficulties. Best to use a letter but if you get that again by phone, specifically ask the person to take dictation of your exact complaint, not just enter generic complaint, send generic response letter to generic complaint.

Do check that you have the conditions with that viability requirement, though, at least one set has no viability requirement at all.

Not at all happy with made available to your solicitor as a response. You're the person who has to be informed of the contract terms and agree to them, not your solicitor.