Bank of Ireland tracker mortgage % increase

leveller2911

Denise2007 wrote: »

I have never come across 125 % mortgages for pay to let. They always required a minimum of 15 % deposit. The 125 % mortgages were for first time buyers.

Anecdotal but my sister was in negative equity in the late 90,s and they allowed her to take the NE to their new house.This amounted to about 120% LTV.

Luckily for her they made money on that property which they could then use for their existing home.


IIRC it was Nat-West or Nationwide but don't quote me on that.

BR_Landlord

brit1234 wrote: »

No because they used Below Market Valuations (BMV) mortgages and gift deposits instead. Mortgage fraud using corrupt surveyors, mortgage advisers, builders and other white collar criminals.

nothing to do with posters on this thread.

JimmyTheWig

Dave1968 wrote: »

Yes of course its going to fail..They are not going to just say - ow OK then - THis is a step that has to be taken in order to go to the ombudsman/ FSA and then court. I include my complaint below.... Would you suggest anything else?

I also think that most arguments will fail at the ombudsman/FSA stage and in court. You don't want to end up losing in court.

My point is that it seems that you have been thrown a lifeline. I think you need to say something like "I was led to believe the differential was for the lifetime of the product and you have volunteered to exclude customers from this change where this is the case" to the BoI.

BR_Landlord

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

My point is that it seems that you have been thrown a lifeline. I think you need to say something like "I was led to believe the differential was for the lifetime of the product and you have volunteered to exclude customers from this change where this is the case" to the BoI.

It's worth a try.

disposalist

I've added that to my FOS notes.

To help those who wish to do the same, Here's the link to Martin Wheatley's letter in reply to the letter from the Treasury Select Committee Chairman, Andrew Tyrie MP: -

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/treasury/130312%20-%20Martin%20Wheatley%20to%20the%20Chiar%20-%20Bank%20of%20Ireland.pdf

and the appropriate section from Martin Wheatley's letter is this: -

"...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" of "lifetime" of the product."

I emailed the above and the following to FOS: -

"My mortgage offer specifies a 5 year fixed rate after which the product reverts to a base rate tracker product. From that I was indeed led to believe the differential was for the remaining life of the product. Please consider this in addition to the other points I raised."

Another important bit I just noticed right at the end, after the stuff that everyone has been quoting about "not in our remit" is this: -

"However, we will continue to ensure Bank of Ireland UK treats those customers who have been impacted by the change, fairly"

Not a complete washing of hands, then.

pandersturn

why is the btl tracker going up to 4.99% when there svr on btl is 4.49%. Had my complaint rejected, surprise,even though i stressed i understood my tracker was for life of mortgage.onto the FOS NEXT. when is a tracker not a tracker when its a bank of ireland tracker and you are not irish then its a SVR exept its 0.5% higher,confused.

rate_hike

It is 4.49 above base rate (0.5%) added together 4.99%

disposalist

pandersturn wrote: »

why is the btl tracker going up to 4.99% when there svr on btl is 4.49%

Oh my god, you know I didn't even think to look, but that's right!

Unbelievable! Not only are they smashing the original mortgage contract they are moving it to a rate worse then their SVR?! They couldn't even offer us the crappy 'you're deal ran out' SVR rate?!

Just one more amazing fact in the BoI madness...

Here's another I just noticed: -
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/banking/2013/04/post-office-to-launch-first-current-account

They are going to offer current accounts via the Post Office... I wonder how long until they seize people's cash to help achieve a good level of reserves or maintain prudent profitability?...

disposalist

smiffy wrote: »

As Bristol & West removed this clause once the FSA started taking ownership on 31st October 2004 hopefully not.

Smiffy (or anyone else who might know), I was just driving along on errands today and suddenly thought about what you'd said here.

If this clause was removed when the FSA took 'ownership' then there must have been a process that identified the clause as 'bad' in some way.

Do you have any documentation about this?

I'm thinking if it was considered (and shown to be) bad enough to stop using then surely they can't use it now, especially in the extreme way it had been used.

If we can show somewhere that it was removed for good and justified reason, then it will help a lot to show just how awful it is to screw us with it?

pandersturn

rate_hike wrote: »

It is 4.49 above base rate (0.5%) added together 4.99%

yea i know thats 0.5% above SVR.