Bank of Ireland tracker mortgage % increase

squeeks

disposalist wrote: »

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

You can regret many fair and rational decision.

You may regret getting a B in an exam, but it is only fair as you didn't put in enough effort to get an A.

The car mechanic regrets to inform you the car service is going to cost more than expected, but it is only fair that you pay for the work, if you agree to it.

etc...

Regret and fairness aren't exclusive.

disposalist

That would have them stretching the definition of 'regret' also then. Not unexpected though is it. No doubt it was scrutenised by a lawyer before going out.

I didn't truly mean their expression of regret was something I could use against them legally though. Just pointing out an irony.

disposalist

In case it helps anyone in a similar situation, I just responded to the Ombudsman filling in their formal complaint form post- final contact from the bank.

The points I stressed: -

1) Complaint at the unfair and excessive nature of the rate change given the understood nature of how trackers are supposed to work, regardless of abuse of legal loopholes.
2) That they claim a need for the measure when still offering new customers 2.X % mortgages through The Post Office.
3) That BoI(UK) claim publically they have a healthy business and BoI parent is the one with the needs, but that this shouldn't be used to impact me.
4) That use of the Residential Mortgage Conditions on my Buy-To-Let mortgage is confusing and the potentially huge impact was never emphasised or made clear.
5) That the terms and conditions are generally complex and confusing and obfuscate their potential impact.
6) That BoI(UK) can unilaterally decide upon such a hugely impacting decision and define unclear terms like "believe" and "need" and "prudent" as they see fit with no publicised or shared process whatsoever.

I'm no expert, so I don't know if I've got everything covered or which points are more important *shrug*

I will let you know how it goes I suppose. Wish me luck, eh? There are so many legal, political, financial, etc related issues here it'll probably come down a large element of luck!

One other thing: talking to the FOS today, I asked if they were dealing with a lot of BoI cases. They chap said, yes, there were an unusual amount of similar cases and he expected more as people take time to deal with it.
I've kind of jumped the gun a little going straight to the FOS, but I've worked for banks for 20ish years and I know they have a lot of resources to throw at dismissing these kind of complaints.

To anyone not yet bothered to contact the BoI or the FOS, please do. Waiting to see what happens with other cases is actually harming those other cases - it would be better to give FOS and BoI (and the press) a better idea of just how many customers are willing to challenge them over this kind of thing.

disposalist

Apologies if I've missed someone else bringing this up, but I just read the head of the new FCA's interview here: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/banking/2013/04/we-will-be-different-to-the-fsa-says-regulator-as-regime-changes-today

and there are a couple of things he says which related to recent comments in this thread: -

To clear up whether people should worry about BoI setting a precident for everyone:
"Most...mortgages...do allow the banks to vary the rate and not just in relation to a base rate change"

And has he effectively said he should help us here?:
"...banks shouldn't trap their captive customers to a higher rate, so they've got to offer people some choice..."

I won't hold my breath, as, actually, the interviewer was asking where he stands on banks like BoI abusing small print and Mr Wheatley just said what, ongoing, should happen. Unhelpful and not really an answer. A bit like his response to the Treasury Select Committee.

disposalist

BR_Landlord wrote: »

The Bank volunteered to exclude customers who thought the differential was for life. I think we should look at what evidence can support this.

Damn. Totally missed this when responding to the FOS.

The contract I have actually starts a fixed rate 2003 to 2008 and then becomes a Base Rate Tracker.

There is no period end for the tracker rules applying. So how would anyone think it was anything other than a clause that applies for the lifetime of the contract?

Is he talking about people who originally arranged a Tracker product? ie. as far as he's concerned I'm screwed?

Thrugelmir

BR_Landlord wrote: »

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.

Be odd if they had. As a residential mortgage contract has very clear references to Consent To let for example. Which would of no relevance to a Buy to Let product. As that's the whole purpose of it.

Thrugelmir

disposalist wrote: »

FYI: I'm 'just a guy'. Not a pro landlord.

You are running a business however no different to people in other markets. So will treated as being able to capable of managing your own affairs.

ILW

Thrugelmir wrote: »

You are running a business however no different to people in other markets. So will treated as being able to capable of managing your own affairs.

A few people see to be saying "I am not a real business" type things which they seem to think excuses them from all teh normal risks and responsibilities of running a business. Seems rather odd to me.

disposalist

Thrugelmir wrote: »

You are running a business however no different to people in other markets. So will treated as being able to capable of managing your own affairs.

Hmm I dunno. It's like saying someone who puts a few items on Ebay is 'running a business' just because a lot of the sellers there are and they are 'doing the same thing'.

The assumption that someone with a BTL mortgage is 'running a business' and somehow 'different' to a residential customer is just wrong.

And anyway, even if a BTL customer is a pro-landlord, I don't see why that should make BoI's actions with them any less 'wrong'.

Do you really mean residential mortgage holders should worry less about their terms and conditions? Everyone is 'capable of managing their own affairs'.

I really don't think it's relavent to the challenge of BoI's behaviour that one customer might be more 'capable' than another and, so, can be shafted that much harder... Though I wouldn't put it past them.

"Yeah, we'll raise the residential mortgages by 4.49 and stage the increase, but those BTL landlord !!!!!!!s can have 4.99 in one go with a few weeks notice!"

My suspicion would be they just thought people would have less sympathy for landlords (no shizzle, Sherlock - just read back this thread) and, so, they could perhaps 'get away with it' easier in the inevitable press coverage.

If there really is a legal distinction banks are allowed to draw between types of customer and can treat one more harshly than another, then that's just even more awful.

Then again, the similar practice of cosying-up to new customers while stuffing loyal existing customers seems to have become 'normal' in this country... but oh look, the powers-that-be are starting to realise how unfair that is (I reference recent regulation to stop power companies only offering their best tariffs to new customers).

Anway - I'm not 'running a business' but even if I were, that doesn't paint a target on your back. Good grief, since when is running a business evil? (unless it's a banking business of course!)

disposalist

ILW wrote: »

A few people see to be saying "I am not a real business" type things which they seem to think excuses them from all teh normal risks and responsibilities of running a business. Seems rather odd to me.

*rolls eyes* I'm keen to stress I'm not a professional landlord purely to make people coming to this thread see that it isn't just those people being hit.

Some of the folks in this thread are getting the same raw deal with their residential mortgages.

Just hoping to deflect some of the useless, unhelpful postings from landlord haters...

As I just said: 'business person' or not has no relevence. This issue is not a clause that a 'business person' should have spotted or been prepared for more than anyone else. The issue is BoI abusing a term that exists in (according to the head of the FCA) most mortgage contracts.