Bank of Ireland tracker mortgage % increase

Denise2007

Very interesting development, have a read of the times, money section. There's a glimmer of hope. Sounds like a decision could be made on a case by case basis ...

Mojo_risen

Dear All BTL,

Effected by the BOI decision - I think a class (USA type) action or at least
protest group is required listing the people effected.

It seems to me generic terms expressed in the contract "necessary" for whom for instance? Certainly to offer new loans via the post office at 2% and increase my existing terms appears prejudicial.

I understand one contribution expressed how the bank previously changed its mortgagees from tracker to fixed and it was considered wrong - this is definitely worth challenging.

I will challenge but I suspect many complaints tethered with political clout would be much better.

ILW

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.

I know of no businesses that would enter into a contract leaving them with a liability of hundreds of thousands, that would not get it checked by a lawyer.
BTL is a business and should be treated as such.
If you fell into this as just a homebuyer I have some sympathy.

BR_Landlord

Today is Martin Wheatley's first day as Chief Executive of the new Financial Conduct Authority. I thought I would write to him regarding his response to Andrew Tyrie's letter in which Tyrie questions the FCA Chief about BofI increasing the differential on 13,500 Tracker Mortgages. Mr Wheatley has been quoted as saying:
"As these mortgages fall outside of our regulatory remit we do not plan to take further action in respect of the increase to the differential....We have reviewed the terms and conditions provided to us by the Bank of Ireland UK and did not identify any concerns which led us to believe the terms may be unfair.
However, only a court may determine whether a term is unfair under the regulations. If a customer is eligible and complains to the Financial Ombudsman Service, it may come to its own view about what may be fair and reasonable."

I have asked him to clarify a few points that he might be able to throw light on after his meeting with Bank of Ireland where they informed him they were about to increase the differential:
• whether the FCA has asked if the BofI intends to return to the original differential at some point or whether the new differential rates are expected to remain for the rest of the life of the Mortgage term.
• what mechanism would stop the Bank of Ireland increasing the differential more (to anyfigure% over Base) if his (FCA's) stated position, is that these mortgages "fall outside of our regulatory remit"

Does that mean the BofI can do what it likes?


Martin Wheatley
Chief Executive
Financial Conduct Authority
(formerly FSA)
25 The North Colonnade
Canary Wharf
London E14 5HS

bigadaj

This is an interesting case because many times on these bards we hear of people who morally have a case but legally have little. This case seems exactly the opposite, personally the idea of btl landlords being subsidised seems crazy to me, but whilst we are in exceptional times (for those that might question this look at base rates, first time this low in 300 years) then this shouldn't allow boi a get out clause. Logically if this deal is uneconomic, which it may well be, then they should liquidate their uk business, this wouldn't help those affected here but would maintain the validity of contracts. There was no reason for the bank to be in this situation as many mortgage contracts have always had minimum levels of say 2 or 3 per cent for example.

Thrugelmir

ILW wrote: »

I know of no businesses that would enter into a contract leaving them with a liability of hundreds of thousands, that would not get it checked by a lawyer.

Plenty of businesses sign contracts without reading them properly or seeking advice. More interested in the product or service to bother reading what they are committing to.

ILW

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Plenty of businesses sign contracts without reading them properly or seeking advice. More interested in the product or service to bother reading what they are committing to.

And some go bust due to it. Cannot see why landlords running a property business think they should be treated differently to any other business.

Thrugelmir

ILW wrote: »

And some go bust due to it. Cannot see why landlords running a property business think they should be treated differently to any other business.

Not necessarily bust, but often end up paying for something that's no longer required for a period.

smiffy

I've uploaded a scan of the article here...

http://www.tracker-rate-hike.co.uk/borrowers-may-escape-shock-rate-rise/

The quote Justin Selig of The Law Department, and there is a class action proposal here too :-

http://www.property118.com/index.php/class-action-litigation-boi-bristol-and-west-mortgages/37248/

Denise2007

I read through the letters between the Treas Comm and the FSA. Very interesting. I think the Treasury Comm are concerned by the raise but more so that it is setting a precedent for other lenders rather than being concerned about the 13,500 affected. That's only in my opinion.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/treasury-committee/news/martin-wheatley-boi-letter/