Bank of Ireland tracker mortgage % increase

pandersturn

disposalist wrote: »

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?

even if it was not removed and they havnt acted on it for those post 2004 proves that it is considered unfair.

disposalist

pandersturn wrote: »

even if it was not removed and they havnt acted on it for those post 2004 proves that it is considered unfair.

That's very true.

Can anyone out there tell us if they have a post 2004 mortgage that DOES have the clause, but they are NOT having their rate changed?

I wonder if we can force BoI to tell us... probably not. I wonder if FOS or FCA can force them?...

Thinking about it, this line has great potential doesn't it?

Martin Wheatley in his letter says the mortgages affected are all from before FSA remit commenced in 2004... Why? Why aren't BoI hitting those after FSA has remit?

1) The clause was removed which means they know it's not fair and wouldn't have gotten by the FSA post-2004.
2) The clause wasn't removed but they don't dare hit those customers because they are 'covered' by the FSA's post-2004 remit.

Either way makes the BoI look awful (as we know they are, but we need something a judge/lawyer/ombudsman will get behind).

It also makes Martin Wheatley look further dodgey. Why the hell would he not ask about the post-2004 mortgages. Not curious why they are only acting on ones before the FSA have the remit to challenge? Don't ask, don't tell? Awesome work, Mr FSA...

BR_Landlord

Been through Offer paperwork with a fine toothed comb. B & W Buy to Let mortgage offer dated October 2003.

• "Your Offer of Loan explained"
"Glossary of Terms
Residential Mortgage Conditions
These are our mortgage conditions referred to in the mortgage deed. Your solicitor or conveyancer should give you these before completion"

That explains why we didnt receive them, also

• "Notes for Mortgage Applicants and Consent to Transfer"
under 10. Charging of Interest
(d) rate of Interest
We have the power to vary the interest rate as set out in our Residential Mortgage Conditions.

They will be able to demonstrate that the customer was aware of their special condition to change differential. (Stuffed I think)

disposalist

BR_Landlord wrote: »

Been through Offer paperwork with a fine toothed comb. B & W Buy to Let mortgage offer dated October 2003.

• "Your Offer of Loan explained"
"Glossary of Terms
Residential Mortgage Conditions
These are our mortgage conditions referred to in the mortgage deed. Your solicitor or conveyancer should give you these before completion"

That explains why we didnt receive them, also

• "Notes for Mortgage Applicants and Consent to Transfer"
under 10. Charging of Interest
(d) rate of Interest
We have the power to vary the interest rate as set out in our Residential Mortgage Conditions.

They will be able to demonstrate that the customer was aware of their special condition to change differential. (Stuffed I think)

Good point on why we may not have seen them, though I'd rather not go after those folks.

We know BoI 'have us' from a strictly legal standpoint - the issue is that the legal loophole they've used can be said to be unfair (the fact that they've buried such a massively important condition) and that what they've done with it is unfair (that they've doubled/tripled a 'tracker' rate based on 'belief' that they 'need' to do it to have 'prudent profitability'.

I don't think we're stuffed at all, we just perhaps cannot argue they are acting 'illegally' re. the dodgey terms and conditions.

There is more than enough bad behaviour from BoI to hang them with, though. I'm sure the FOS and FCA will see that.

JimmyTheWig

Have people seen today's Metro?
Wrap-around front cover advert for Post Office/BoI UK mortgages, saying how stress-free they are.
Grrr.

ILW

Have none of you gone to court yet?

brit1234

ILW wrote: »

Have none of you gone to court yet?

Not yet, they are still looking for a loop hole and pay for legal fees. The higher payments will be on them before the court procedures get that far (that's if they find anything to go to court for).

disposalist

ILW wrote: »

Have none of you gone to court yet?

Still waiting on the FOS verdict.

pandersturn

disposalist wrote: »

Still waiting on the FOS verdict.

just been in touch with the F.O.S and they have told me they will not be getting involved due to it not being regulated,thought they were already dealing with it ?.

brit1234

disposalist wrote: »

Still waiting on the FOS verdict.

The FSA as it was only dealt with residential not buy to let mortgages, it was not their remit.