Bank of Ireland tracker mortgage % increase

Thrugelmir

BR_Landlord wrote: »

I think other posts have explained the FSA/FCA cant just ignore what Banks are getting up to even if certain products fall outside their remit.

BOI(UK) may well in same boat as Barclays, RBS and Lloyds in having to increase their capital reserves. This information may well not come into the public domain until the objective is achieved by all the banks concerned. So as not to cause consumer panic.

BR_Landlord

Thrugelmir wrote: »

There'll be fundamental differences between the contract terms and conditions of a residential and BTL mortgage. Why would you expect anything else?

Not least that the BTL mortgage allows a LL to let the property.

It is possible that the "SPECIAL CONDITIONS" pages in the Offer dealt with those things. I would have to have a look.

I regret I don't think you are right. It looks like the product was typed up and rushed out and referred to an existing printed document (the Residential T & Cs) to make it complete. The lawyer who wrote the Special Conditions must have assumed that it would be printed and put together in the normal way. I havn't checked my other mortgages by I am assuming they are actually typeset and printed.

Thrugelmir

BR_Landlord wrote: »

I regret I don't think you are right.

Suggest you understand the difference if intend filing a complaint.

BR_Landlord

Thrugelmir wrote: »

There'll be fundamental differences between the contract terms and conditions of a residential and BTL mortgage.

.

It would not be about me understanding the differences but about whether the Bank of Ireland would have covered themselves utilizing the Residential T & Cs with a Buy to Let product.

As I said the Offer document will cover the specific areas relating to BTLs.

You did raise an interesting point. I wonder none of the lawyers has picked up on this?

neverdespairgirl

disposalist wrote: »

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'"?

I am a sad cow, with no life.

WHen we bought out flat in 2011, I read the whole of the contract, and the lease, and cross-referred where necessary.

I also read the deeds for the freehold of the building, and the contract between the freeholder and the managing agents.

I always read, carefully, any serious document I'm going to sign.

As a result, I can now tell you that it is against the terms of our lease to play our gramaphone too loudly on a Sunday or in the evenings, so as to annoy other residents in the building. We are also not allowed to keep chickens, ducks, or other poultry in our patio, but we could apparently quite happily have a pig, cow or sheep there, as they aren't mentioned.

disposalist

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

When we bought out flat in 2011, I read the whole of the contract, and the lease, and cross-referred where necessary...we could apparently quite happily have a pig, cow or sheep there, as they aren't mentioned.

Hehe thanks for that. I'm sure I have similar clauses - If this all goes south and I lose my flat I'll be sure to keep some pigs in the lounge for a while before they auction it off...

disposalist

So... before I write back to the Ombudsman about the F..k you letter BoI sent as their "final reply" to me.

FYI: I'm 'just a guy'. Not a pro landlord. When I needed to leave London and I the housing market was stuffed I converted to a BTL mortgage. Also, I'm not a lawyer. I do read contracts, but it can be hard to tell whether clause 13b(iii) and condition 6(r) mean "we're allowed to completely abuse/reverse the basis of Base Rate Tracker if we 'believe' we 'need' to".

Some help is appreciated: The FSA/FCA are say "these mortgages fall outside of our regulatory remit"?! What?! Is it true that they won't deal with anything before 2004 and/or non-residential?!
Then WHO DOES?!

I've just phoned the FOS and they say not to worry about the FSA/FCA: that they treat every case individually and if the FSA/FCA don't have this in 'their remit' it won't have a negative effect...

Still - if the FSA/FCA don't/won't/can't be the ones to bring the banks into line on these kind of issues, who does/will/can? And I suppose that the conditions referred to by the BTL being residential ones makes no odds?

Anyone know?

swardean

BR_Landlord wrote: »

I don't believe there to be a case based on unfair Contract terms, but the fact that the T&Cs were not part of the document list received can perhaps SUGGEST (which is all that is required) that customers believed the differential would be for the lifetime of the product.
.

I disagree, I think the contract terms are unfair. I complete accept they are present in the document but that is not the same as being fair.

It could well have been written as, "In special circumstances, as defined by ourselves and without providing evidence to the debtor we may increase the differential on any mortgage to any level we see appropriate."

Is this fair?

disposalist

I should make a seperate post rather than wedge it in the previous I guess:

So do we think there's any mileage in tackling the confusing/weird nature of our BTL mortgages using a standard *residential* conditions document to screw us?

Personally, I do not remember if I got one back in 2003, but I know the first thing I thought when I saw it recently (I asked for copies of my 'contract') was "!!!!!! are they sending me a residential contract for? This must be wrong".

If I'd seen it back then, I can't believe I wouldn't have questioned it, even being the gormless pleb I am. I can't believe I wouldn't remember *if* I had questioned it either, because I would ordinarily (until recently) have been pretty trusting of banks, so bringing it up would have been unusual to me... Confused? Yeah me too. That's the point I guess.

disposalist

swardean wrote: »

I disagree, I think the contract terms are unfair. I complete accept they are present in the document but that is not the same as being fair.

It could well have been written as, "In special circumstances, as defined by ourselves and without providing evidence to the debtor we may increase the differential on any mortgage to any level we see appropriate."

Is this fair?

Though I think you're right, I think it's semantics, though and the BoI would say the same, so challenging the 'fairness' of the clause probably won't get anywhere, I think.

The way they have *used* the openess of the clause is definately downright despicable. Unfair is an understatement.

In my 'final letter' from them they expressed "regret" over what the change would do to their customers, but said they had performed a fairness assessment internally.

Why would they 'regret' something that's 'fair'?...