Bank of Ireland tracker mortgage % increase

JimmyTheWig

Dave1968 wrote: »

"Separately" writes Mr Wheatley, "the Bank of Ireland UK volunteered to exclude customers from this change where there is evidence SUGGESTING that the customer could have been led to believe the differential was for the "life" or"lifetime" of the product*. (my emphasis)...

I think that's pretty clear with out the emphasis... I was sold a base rate tracker for the life of the mortgage... I have received a letter from BOI rejecting my complaint and have taken it to the ombudsman- Can I also take to the FSA at this stage?

Personally I would go back to the BoI.
I presume that your original complaint wasn't along the lines of "I was led to believe the differential was for the lifetime of the product and you have volunteers to exclude customers from this change where this is the case". In which case your complaint may well fail. I believe that most reasons for complaint cited on this thread will fail, which is why I suspect that yours will too.
So I would go back to the BoI with either a new complaint or fresh evidence/information on your existing complaint.

BR_Landlord

Originally Posted by BR Landlord
"Separately" writes Mr Wheatley, "the Bank of Ireland UK volunteered to exclude customers from this change where there is evidence SUGGESTING that the customer could have been led to believe the differential was for the "life" or"lifetime" of the product*. (my emphasis)

originally posted by Jimmy the Wig
This, to me, is the first thing that I have heard that makes me suggest people have a chance of not being hit with this raise.

A group action in court would mean fighting on some over riding principle such as mis-selling or unfair contract terms, neither of which I believe have much mileage.

However, I had an epiphany: each borrower must complain to the Bank of Ireland separately stating they believed the product to be a lifetime tracker (on whatever grounds they have,which is true).

(The only other trackers i have spotted are fixed term trackers which track for an agreed number of years, such as 5 year tracker etc –I only just discovered this.)

That's the first step. Then they will response will be "sorry we will exclude you then as we promised the Chief Executive of the FCA", or they will reject the complaint. Then you write to Martin Wheatley in person and let him know the details of your particular case because you feel that BofI are not treating you fairly and he has promised to monitor them on this issue.

So this is the point: The Bank of Ireland will get away with increasing the differential if the case is argued collectively, but if people complain and then take their complaint to the FCA, the FCA should be in either a very uncomfortable position especially with the Treasury and the Press, or in a position to holf Bank of Ireland to their exclusion promise.

BR_Landlord

Just another point: if B of I exclude a few borrowers from the raise who can successfully argue the point regarding believing the differential was for the life of the product, B of I have still changed the differential for the majority who don't look at forums. You never know, they might throw a bone to please FCA.

Actually the more I think about it the statements from Mr Wheatley (FCA) are just smoke while the Bank of Ireland holds up the mirror. Without substance but reads well in the newspapers.

lazyjack

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

This, to me, is the first thing that I have heard that makes me suggest people have a chance of not being hit with this raise.
I would say that if you didn't know about this clause, due to not reading it and not being told about it, then you write to BoI and say that you were led to believe the differential was for the lifetime of the product as that is what it was marketted as and you weren't aware of any reason why it wouldn't be.

Which is pretty much what I was getting at with my post here a few weeks back:

lazyjack wrote: »

I'm on a lifetime tracker, not with BOI fortunately, but when I signed up around 5 years ago I was definitely given the impression that it would follow the base rate, up or down, for the duration (lifetime) of the mortgage.

If I was in this situation with BOI, the basis of my complaint would be that the product was sold to me as a product which would track the BOE base rate for the full duration of the mortgage - and that's exactly what I would be asking them to honour.

I can't believe anyone pre-2004 (when these mortgages started) would have even considered the possibility of a 'Lifetime Tracker Mortgage' being anything other than that. Most people would have walked away immediately had they been advised such a clause existed.

disposalist

I've got my fingers crossed that Mr Wheatley and the new FCA will want to not look like the old FSA and will make an example to show they really are interested in protecting customers not just helping banks avoid fines. It looks bad on him currently that he tried the "not in my remit" comment when challenged by MPs, and the Treasury Select Committee have not let it go, either, thankfully.

Perhaps strictly legally, the mis-selling-esque argument is the only way, but personally, I'm not wanting to challenge them on the legality of their move: I'm going to stick to challenging them on the treating their customers unfairly.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: no matter how much lawyers think that small print can be bent and abused to suit the bank, they are still behaving like asre hloes and must not be allowed to set this precedent for other financial product providers.

BoI, like every other bank, got greedy and over-reached. Even now, when they've screwed up and are being forced to make good the situation they created, they are attempting to make their customers pay for their consequences.

It doesn't get much more unfair than that.

This is *exactly* the sort of thing the new FCA are supposed to deal with. Saying "not in our remit" is just unbelievably stupid in so many ways.

disposalist

lazyjack wrote: »

I can't believe anyone pre-2004 (when these mortgages started) would have even considered the possibility of a 'Lifetime Tracker Mortgage' being anything other than that. Most people would have walked away immediately had they been advised such a clause existed.

Part of the complication for me is I didn't buy a lifetime tracker mortgage, I bought a 5-year fixed-rate mortgage that reverted to a base-rate tracker after that period.

The clauses that describe the fixed rate are fine and clear, the clauses that define the following BRT are a bit more wordy and refer to another document, the other document is convoluted and confusing.

Even *if* you read the guarantee period pages, the further pages and *if* you were given the additional conditions document and *if* you understood and cross-referenced all three it still no doubt looked ok (and your lawyer didn't blink) because, apparently, most mortgages have similar clauses.

With hindsite and looking for the particular relevant parts, it is *still* tough to follow.

My point is, yes, I agree with you, if they pointed out "oh, by the way, this special clause here means the stuff about a base-rate tracker can be absolutely ignored by us if we feel we're a bit short of cash that year" then noone would buy the mortgage.

But mortgage agreements are complex things that not many people do (or can) fully appreciate all the subtle parts of. 13,500 people signed these contracts and 13,500 solicitors presumably looked them over. I'm not even sure the contract is unfair or wrong - it would probably take several clever (and expensive) lawyers to determine that and then there would be lots of legal wrangling in court against several clever bank-paid lawyers to decide it officially.

Whatever the strict legality, though, BoI here are really, really stretching one or two sub-sub-conditions of a clause in order to shaft their customers. I can see that without any legal training.

motch

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

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.

Yes I've read a fair bit of my leases over the years too. Most important when lots of money is involved.

With the pig... could you go for an American Hog? about 600lb+ would beat any chavs dogs hands down:A

brit1234

swardean wrote: »

This seems to have generated into a Mortgage holders v Savers argument when really we are all consumers.

I think it is more Buy to let mortgage Holders V Savers and First time buyers.

It does make you sick when landlords are being offered a 4.49% mortgage which is extremely low especially compared to when they took out the mortgage. Mean while savers are being fleeced to bail out these landlords and potential first time buyers are being priced out by landlords who have unfair tax advantages.

It just stinks of greed, if landlords don't like it then move provider. The changes are fair due to the circumstances and written into the contract. If you can't be bothered to read the conditions on deals worth £10,000s - £100,000s, then surely the blame is closer to home.

BR_Landlord

"It does make you sick when landlords are being offered a 4.49% mortgage which is extremely low especially compared to when they took out the mortgage."
First posted by Brit1234

Get your facts right.

The new rate (with increased differential) is 4.49% over Base which means 4.99%.

4.99% was exactly the figure I signed up to in 2003 for a 5 year fixed BTL mortgage product until it reverted to a Base rate Tracker. That reverted to 1.75% over Base so it could range from the current 2.25% to 16.75% (15% over Base) as it was back in the eighties. So people who choose a tracker are prepared to take the rise and fall of the Bank Base rate.

Do you want to see different lending rates according to what job the borrower has?

If you rent your accommodation, which I assume from your comments you do, you will not be fully aware of how many costs there are associated with purchasing, ownership and management. Actually I am not bothered, you need to stop seeing the world as "them" and "us".

BR_Landlord

It just stinks of greed, if landlords don't like it then blah blah splutter blah
First posted by brit1234

lol I hadn't noticed that lol