Ulster bank knew I was entitled to my tracker back, but went all the way with the FSO anyway

N

notabene

Registered User
Messages
387
Through a barrister, I provided the central bank with emails where the bank had admitted I had been entitled to my tracker back and they had used my case as a test case in the financial ombudsman's office. TheY went on to say that the bank was better off by having paid 'compensation' money rather than having an active mortgage on their books and that it wasn't reflective of the actual cost. I had gotten these though a data request just before Christmas and had tried for four months to get any good of Ulster but they were obfuscating at every turn, completely and utterly impossible to deal with.

At the end of March as I was totally fed up and frustrated so I got a barrister's advice and we sent this information into the central bank. A copy was also sent to the Ulster. The central bank contacted me in April seeking permission to specifically refer to my case in their wider actions with the bank to which of course I said yes and that I would be happy to provide any info they needed. I got a letter finally confirming from Ulster that my case will be reviewed in their examination & the ombudsman office confirmed yesterday that he also got a letter saying all ulster cases which had been through his office would be similarly reviewed

Yes the FSO does, Ger Deering is aware of that I met with him in February to go through the process there and my case as I had done a data request on the fso regarding my case also. There is no method for calculating compensation & that needs to change, you are essentially in breach of contract as the bank has breached a condition of your contract, therefor you should have the remedies of specific performance ( make them give it back) or damages (return you to the position you should have been in) or both. The process has changed so that the bank has to go to mediation which is good but the 'compensation' calculation etc needs to be made proper otherwise you are better to go to court but that means the high court which is €€€
 
Last edited:
Notabene great work!

It seems that the main focus is on first active trackers before being merged with UB.

Did your email relate specifically to your case or a broader admission? I had a FA tracker that falls under the dates outlined by the CBI.
 
Thank you! I'm like a dog with a bone....not at all content to let them get away with it. I have left no stone unturned and even though i 'won' my fso case I want full and proper compensation, including opportunity cost for keeping me in financial limbo for the last 8 years. I'm not a solicitor but I would feel those admissions are very significant as it shows they knew exactly.

It admitted that I should have had my 'tracker back as per condition 2' so I would assume that to be a wider admission applicable to all with a tracker from Ulster in 2006 anyway. The fact that they admitted the 'compensation' from the fso wasn't reflective of the actual cost & cheaper for them would also be a wider admission for all and shows incentive on their part to have done this. Particularly as they said there was no particular reasoning to compensation awards, which had been as low as €1000

However, In my own case as a determination from the fso was issued in dec 2014, from what I understand at the moment, unless the bank do the right thing now, I would have to take them to court to change decision as legally the fso can't amend and neither can central bank so in my case it's wait and see.

Good news for the rest of you as they should automatically have to fix I would presume - will just have to wait and see what happens next. Unfortunately I did not appeal it at the time due to the cost of a high court case when I had no guarantee I would win and I was utterly exhausted from that 2.5year battle through fso.

But I would be looking at proceedings now if they don't act accordingly as a result of this investigation, particularly as these emails have since come to light.

I can't comment on FA as I haven't seen their agreements, but ulster ones very loose, no reference/conditions to losing tracker, said tracker was for the life of the mortgage and there was no new mortgage agreement issued when I fixed.
 
Last edited:
When Ulster sent me written confirmation last week they just said it has to be finished by Sept 30th, which is next Central Bank deadline. I did email looking for further clarification but no reply.

I will email them again though over the weekend on foot of yesterday's news and ask again, but knowing them, I doubt they will commit even to ball park date other than report is due on 30th Sept.
 
Notabene, well done so far!!

Does anyone know whether Ulster Bank have to review ALL tracker mortgages that are on their books whether the tracker has been previously restored or not?

The reason I ask is because Ulster Bank restored my tracker last year thanks to the trojan work of Padraic Kissane. However, it cost me a considerable amount of my refund of overpayment to fight Ulster Bank for my own money! No compensation or redress either.

Does anyone have any idea on how I would find out whether previously restored Ulster Bank trackers are being included in this review?
 
Yes, as far as I understand they are. The Ombudsman confirmed to me on friday afternoon that they had finally received confirmation in writing to Ger Deering, the financial Ombudsman, from Ulster's CEO, that all cases which had gone through the FSO process, substantiated or dismissed, would be reviewed. Therefore, you should be reviewed too even though it wasn't the FSO you went through.

I agree with your claim and this is what I am looking for too - those fees are very high, I decided to contiune it myself when quoted them last October, but you also need to be compensated for the of opportunity cost not having that money and being kept in financial limbo over that period also.

In my own case I initially took case in 2012 as Ulster were then letting people move unincumbered with trackers. When Ulster refused mediation the FSO said the case would take 5 months, it took 28 months from start to finish and we know what happened to property prices during that period. Not to mention the ongoing stress, and it can be extremely stressful, I have definitely aged from this. Huge swathes of my time have gone into this too.

My case is a little different as after a year of fighting with the bank initially, I moved to the mortgage to another provider, my employment was not secure and hours were falling. Ulster were stonewalling. The variable I had been put on was as high as 6.15% and my background was Economics so I knew when negative equity came I would be stuck - I liken it to a financial version of constructive dismissal, because the bank set forth these conditions there was no choice but to move it and I understand I am not the only Ulster customer who did this.

Before my case was determined Ulster make a last ditch attempt at settling, there was much messing around, but finally offered at €12,500 'goodwill' payment. So I replied with a full list of costs, and I threw the kitchen sink at it, even including potential over paid TRS on my part. They didn't get back to be and returned the case to adjudication saying I was difficult to deal with but they never tried to negotiate, apparently you are difficult if you don't roll over.

I did win the case subsequently but my compensation comes nowhere near what I lost. Ulster said at the time they couldn't restore the tracker as their underwriters wouldn't allow them, but my mortgage is in equity, no reason it couldn't have been moved back for them to do it, only it was a convienient excuse but I am happy for them to make a full payment in liu either, which they would not do. So they are having their cake and eating it.

This is also a problem coming from the FSO compensation process though, as through my emails the bank was working off prior compensation amounts it seems - The FSO don't look at what you have lost they just decide a figure without any financial calculation as to what you have actually lost. And of course the bank are happy to pay as little as possible, it is a win for them really. They are gaming the system as it stands.

Since I've gotten those emails, I feel they show the bank knew exactly what they did and gained from it. I am going to pursue full economic compensation as it were, I'm in this long - I'm going to finish it. The fso has said I have one of the most substantive cases they have seen, but I do think all customers need to be insistent on full compensation in order to have an impact.

When you think about it, imagine the behaviour of the bank if you were the one in breach of contract to them, ie in arrears - to think they can get away with what they have so far is outrageous
 
How do you know the FSO don't calculate loses to decide on compensation, that ridiculous. What a system.
 
I did a data request on them to to get the calculations - there weren't any and then met with the Ombudsman himself to discuss it. The bank also mentions in their emails that there is no rationale used when making compensation decisions by the FSO.

In fairness he is now definitely aware of the issues there & is trying to make changes. My case was determined under the previous ombudsman. There is also no way to change the decision as it stands without going to court, unless the bank now chooses to do the right thing

At the moment, while we wait to see how the new system works you would probably be better to sue for breach of contract, but that is very expensive and you'd want to know you can win, which of course is the problem because the bank knows you are unlikely to do this. A high court case is looking at a minimum of €50-100k in costs, potentially double that if you lose.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top