Bank of Ireland tracker mortgage % increase

leveller2911

Denise2007 wrote: »

Give him/her a break, they're stressed and comments like the above are not helpful

Its a forum (place for debate) not the CAB but if you want constructive advice then I suggest the OP pops over to the DFW and Bankruptcy boards there are some very knowledgable people in there.

ILW

Little_Landlord wrote: »

You've missed my point completely. a) this was not designed as a business, it was a way of making up for a lack of pension. b) I have no complaint about interest rates going up, this would be as a result of market forces and those same market forces would have a positive effect on the capital value of my properties.

What i love about people like you is how black/white you are; there's no grey. There's no injustice as far as you're concerned, you must love it in your ivory tower being right all the time. I'm sure you're getting a big kick out of this right now. Unfortunately life isn't black/white and there is injustice in the world and, as far as I and it seems [reading this forum] many others are concerned, this is one of them.

Think you are missing the point, it was a business and you expected the profits to pay for a pension for you over and above what a normal pension would have paid out. You gambled and it appears it may not have paid off.
Why do you think it should be looked at differently to any other business?

Thrugelmir

Little_Landlord wrote: »

As i don't have the finances to pay this, i will have no option but to declare bankcruptcy.

Even the best business people go bankrupt. There's no certainty of a profitable outcome with any business venture.

I would suggest that you seek professional advice to wind up your venture. If you are able to retain your home then it will be a major plus.

Chalk the venture up to experience. Also accept the fact the decisions made were yours. No one held a gun to your head your sign or do anything.

disposalist

Wow - still bashing the BTL landlords? A bit pathetic, isn't it? And a tad short-sighted? I suppose you don't all have a mortgage at all? Or other investments?

You'll have to swallow a big bile sandwich like BoI customers if they get away with this and all the other lenders follow suit and bend and break the agreements you all have because there wasn't enough public outcry for these first acts of mis-conduct.

Yes, some BTL mortgage holders are professional landlords, and all investments/businesses involve risk.

The big issue here is BoI are the ones now unwilling to honour an investment when it is not going great for them.

Investments go wrong and businesses fail, right? Apparently not if you are a bank - you just get a bail out from the goverment and/or you abuse the terms of your products so your customers 'maintain your viability' for you.

disposalist

madoona wrote: »

What ring fenced UK part am i the only one who was with Bank of Irelan UK ltd in Jan 2003 and was moved forceably to BOI in about 2006????

All my communications have always been and still are from Bank of Ireland UK. I got my mortgage originally with Bristol and West in 2003 and it was 'acquired' by BoI UK in 2007ish.

ILW

disposalist wrote: »

Wow - still bashing the BTL landlords? A bit pathetic, isn't it? And a tad short-sighted? I suppose you don't all have a mortgage at all? Or other investments?

You'll have to swallow a big bile sandwich like BoI customers if they get away with this and all the other lenders follow suit and bend and break the agreements you all have because there wasn't enough public outcry for these first acts of mis-conduct.

Yes, some BTL mortgage holders are professional landlords, and all investments/businesses involve risk.

The big issue here is BoI are the ones now unwilling to honour an investment when it is not going great for them.

Investments go wrong and businesses fail, right? Apparently not if you are a bank - you just get a bail out from the goverment and/or you abuse the terms of your products so your customers 'maintain your viability' for you.

It is only the contracts that had the "get out" clause that are affected. As a business you need to be able to understand contracts and refuse if you are not sure of anything. Being blinded by the thought of easy money is no excuse.

disposalist

For anyone still out there looking for info/progress rather than just smugly blurting unhelpful spite: -

I have received a response to my formal complaint to BoI Mortgage Customer Services (and they are aware of my commuincations via the Financial Ombudsman Service). I can summarise their response to be the unsurprising position of "we feel we need to do it" and "we legally can get away with it" so "we will do it".

Some notable excerpts: -

"the Bank does regret the distress caused"

in words, not deeds is worthless.

"all mortgage lenders are subject to pressure in terms of rising funding costs..."

great excuse - so why are only BoI needing to screw their customers quite so hard?

"the Bank is commited to treating it's customer fairly"

wow. That's almost funny. Almost.

"A 'treating customers fairly' assessment was made by us"

and the results disregarded?

"the Bank fully engaged with the FSA prior to making the change"

Well, either 'fully engaged' means 'told them the bare minimum to get a quotable agreement' or the FSA have failed their duty again.

"regard this letter as a final response"

So I guess it's back to the FOS, on to the FSA, sideways to the press and maybe get some lawyers' opinions about how terminology (from the contract and conditions) like "we believe that the increase...is necessary" and "we need to increase the amount" and "prudent level of profitability" really stand up legally when they attempt to smash the meaning of a 'tracker' mortgage with them.

I will also try and get some comment from them about how they can 'believe' that they 'need' to more than double my 'tracker' rate while still offering new customers 2.x percent via the Post Office, but I'm doubting BoI will give any response, let alone a useful or honest one.

disposalist

ILW wrote: »

It is only the contracts that had the "get out" clause that are affected. As a business you need to be able to understand contracts and refuse if you are not sure of anything. Being blinded by the thought of easy money is no excuse.

Once more: It's not a business for me and not all those effected are BTL landlords, but even if that were the case, good grief, this is a MORTGAGE CONTRACT not some multinational merger deal. I have it on good authority that almost ALL mortgage contracts have these kind of clauses.

Do you know of ANYONE who has read a mortgage contract from a reputable bank and thought "you know what, I'm not comfortable with Clause 13b(ii)'s reference to conditions 6(p)(ii) in the additional documentation, I think I'll go to another bank, because they seem less likely to abuse a 'special condition'"?

No, me either.

The problem is not the contract, but how badly BoI are abusing that clause in the contract to screw their customers.

They are massively exploiting a grey area because they think they can get away with it. Keep on undermining those on the receiving end, and they might.

And you'll be next.

Denise2007

disposalist wrote: »

Once more: It's not a business for me and not all those effected are BTL landlords, but even if that were the case, good grief, this is a MORTGAGE CONTRACT not some multinational merger deal. I have it on good authority that almost ALL mortgage contracts have these kind of clauses.

Do you know of ANYONE who has read a mortgage contract from a reputable bank and thought "you know what, I'm not comfortable with Clause 13b(ii)'s reference to conditions 6(p)(ii) in the additional documentation, I think I'll go to another bank, because they seem less likely to abuse a 'special condition'"?

No, me either.

The problem is not the contract, but how badly BoI are abusing that clause in the contract to screw their customers.

They are massively exploiting a grey area because they think they can get away with it. Keep on undermining those on the receiving end, and they might.

And you'll be next.

Am not sure where you have got the information from re this clause is in all contracts. It's not in my HBOS, RBS or my two later B&W mortgages contracts. It is however in my 2001 contract with B&W. This change is affecting approx. 7% of the mortgage book of BOI with this clause. A legal clause is not a grey area !

I didn't read it properly at the time but I still signed. I understand it's a legal agreement and am holding out little hope of it being reversed. Am going to start making alternative plans after Easter.

I think anyone who has paid off their mortgages during that time and wasn't on interest only should be able to do this easily enough. Most properties should have significant equity to allow us to get a good deal elsewhere.

To be honest not sure why people have been on interest only on mortgages at least 10 terms into term, how were you going to pay for the properties at the end of the mortgage ?? I think some landlords may have gotten bad advice encouraging them to do this or got carried away with continually releasing equity to purchase more. I do feel sorry for anyone overstetched though as this would be a stressful time.

BTL is definitely a business and most landlords would confirm this.

swardean

brit1234 wrote: »

At 4.75% your mortgage payments are lower than 2004, you should be ok.

Now if you aren't ok then your business venture is flawed and should be allowed to fail. We are meant to be in a capitalist economy, this isn't capitalism when we bail out the failed constantly and punish the prudent like savers. Its this lack of capitalism that is holding back the economy. Recessions are good for clearing out the economy of the sick/inefficient areas which in turns promotes new growth. For example if those over geared in trouble landlords were forced to sell up it would provided cheaper homes for first time buyers who would then stimulate the economy by buying white goods and furniture.

Ahh, a true capitalist, so I assume in this survival of the fittest economy you strive for, we should have just let the entire banking system fail without intervening? And with it your 'prudent' savings?