Bank or Ireland - Increase of "differential" !

Thrugelmir

DIVADIVA wrote: »

Any comments anyone?

The state of the Eire economy along with their banks is well documented.

So very obviously this can be cited as a justifiable reason.

we will only increase the Differential if we believe that the increase or reduction is necessary to maintain the viability of our business following a serious adverse change in market conditions

HerbertJames

I'm in the same position as the rest of you, so I shall not repeat the details.

If the BOI are actually behaving legally, which is still debatable, it strikes me that the best way of confronting them is through a coherent political challenge, rather than a legal one.

The coalition has made a big play of the need to pursue their austerity programme. I'll not debate the merits of that, but there's no doubt that the reason it has been widely supported is because people are terrified that if austerity is not followed, the result will be that their mortgage rates will go up. If this is going to happen anyway and combined with the political fall out of Britain losing its AAA credit rating, it seems to me that key political leaders have everything to gain by challenging this apparently arbitrary and unfair action by the BOI. This is especially true as if the BOI gets away with this it will surely set a precedence and open the floodgates which will be followed by other lenders following suit which could result in a devastating political backlash.

Would it be a good idea for us to form a unified group and approach a few key ministers with the issues and see if we can get the government to shame the bank into moderating its behaviour.

It's a long shot, but perhaps the best chance that we have.

Thrugelmir

HerbertJames wrote: »

If the BOI are actually behaving legally, which is still debatable, it strikes me that the best way of confronting them is through a coherent political challenge, rather than a legal one.

The political parties will avoid confrontation with a commercial organisation. As sends out the wrong messages. In terms of the UK being a place to conduct business.

Dot_Comedy

It does seem from this thread that there are no common terms and conditions for changing the agreement and that the T&C's changed year by year. As I posted earlier my T&C's are far simpler and far less onerous than those some of you have posted, which quite frankly are ludicrous and make a mockery of a tracker mortgage as it gives the bank the opportunity to renege on the contract almost at will. In normal contractual terms this could well be considered to be 'unfair' and thus unenforceable. (Any lawyers out there?)
No doubt this will be a fight but banks and their legal departments are fallible and have been known to take a chance or two in the past and get it wrong otherwise they wouldn't be stumping up for all the PPI claims.
When the Skipton tried a similiar move with differentials I understand that they ended up having to settle out of court with those who took them on, probably on the basis that they didn't want to risk a legal precedent being set.
The ombudsman is there to protect the consumer and has in the past forced banks to change their minds so he should be the first port of call following exhausting the banks own complaints procedure, but I expect he would rule on each case individually rather than collectively and thus it may well come down to individual T&C's and his interpretation of their reasonableness.

hunsworth_hound

I too have received a letter this morning but my mortgage is in two parts an original buy to let and a further advance. For some reason they have only increased the original presumably further advance didn't have the variable clause in it.
The rate they have chosen to increase it to is their SVR

Thrugelmir

hunsworth_hound wrote: »

I too have received a letter this morning but my mortgage is in two parts an original buy to let and a further advance. For some reason they have only increased the original presumably further advance didn't have the variable clause in it.
The rate they have chosen to increase it to is their SVR

Presumably the additional advance is at a higher rate than the original.

hunsworth_hound

No it isn't it started out for two years at a lower rate but then for some reason instead of reverting to their SVR it went to the same tracker rate as the original. Their letter today states only the part of the mortgage is affected by the increase which fortunately is just over a third of the total loan.
Bet somebody got a bonus for thinking this one up.

Thrugelmir

Perhaps another letter will follow.

nicolarowley

I'm in the same boat as everyone else.
I think in order to fight this we will have to find a way of acting together. I'm not sure how to achieve this but institutions like BOI are unlikely to listen to individuals.
I have contacted Moneybox (BBC) so hopefully they will ventilate this matter.
I contacted the FSA who advised me to follow the B&W complaints process and, if not satisfied with the outcome, to refer it to the FOS. I confidentally expect a corporate brush off from B&W so I should have thought the more complaints the FOS have the better our chances.
Basically if they can use increased capital reserves as a justification for tearing up mortgage agreements then all lenders could do the same. That has to be stopped.

marathonic

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The state of the Eire economy along with their banks is well documented.

So very obviously this can be cited as a justifiable reason.

we will only increase the Differential if we believe that the increase or reduction is necessary to maintain the viability of our business following a serious adverse change in market conditions

I totally agree with you. Banks are getting bad enough press. I think they'll have had enough legal advice before sending thousands of rate increase notifications to be pretty confident that they have a case. Otherwise, why risk their reputation further.

I don't feel there is any chance whatsoever that the FOS can argue that the section in bold above doesn't apply here.