Bank of Ireland tracker mortgage % increase

rate_hike

There,s no mention of court in the class action there,s another avenue to go down.

neverdespairgirl

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I'm sure that BOI sought the advice of Clifford Chance themselves before taking action.

Do BOI instruct Clifford Chance?

rate_hike

Id be surprised if they could afford them as they are in dir strates. probably there lawyers went to FSA for opinion if truth be known.

Thrugelmir

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Do BOI instruct Clifford Chance?

Certainly a reasonable possibility that the board would have sought advice in taking such a decision. Along with consulting with the FSA as to their intentions. At the end of the day the Directors are duty bound to maintain the solvency of the bank. So board minutes would record the basis on which the decision was made.

rate_hike

If BoI did only get opinion from FSA. that explains the baristers opinion & why the outcome could be a good one, banks relying on human nature think you would,nt have a chance so we would,nt challenge.

magpiecottage

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Along with consulting with the FSA as to their intentions.

I am not entirely sure why they would do that for B2Ls as they were never FSA regulated - which is probably why its successor is not interested either.

However, if residential borrowers take the case to FOS and get an Ombudsman, rather than an adjudicator, to decide in against BOI, that would be seen as a "steer" by the courts in relation to B2L which could then make things easier for borrowers - although the court is not bound by the decision.

neverdespairgirl

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Certainly a reasonable possibility that the board would have sought advice in taking such a decision. Along with consulting with the FSA as to their intentions. At the end of the day the Directors are duty bound to maintain the solvency of the bank. So board minutes would record the basis on which the decision was made.

I'm sure they would have taken advice, I just wondered where the CC reference came from.

southbound_2

I have been thinking of this issue and want to know

(1) Why BOI are only deciding to do this 5 years after the banking crisis began;

(2) In common law have they not set a precedence by not changing the differential rate since 2008...why decide to do it 5 years later

Also if I decide to fight but in the meantime fix with BOI Mortgages at say 3.99% if it turns out they cannot increase the differential rate how does fixing impact on my rights

Surley BOI has a stronger balance sheet now than in 2008/2009...which begs the question if they are relying on the differential rate increase clause would they not have been more pressed to do it earlier....I think they are calling our bluff!!

We must not let them win...they are reneging on their contractual obligations.

Thrugelmir

magpiecottage wrote: »

I am not entirely sure why they would do that for B2Ls as they were never FSA regulated - which is probably why its successor is not interested either.

.

FSA regulates all the banks as to capital solvency requirements.

Thrugelmir

southbound wrote: »

Surley BOI has a stronger balance sheet now than in 2008/2009....

4 years of base rate at 0.5% is why.

Before you ask the standard question on this forum. No, banks do not borrow the funds to lend at this rate. So on low rate trackers the BOI is losing money.