# A review of  those deemed "not impacted".



## Brendan Burgess (18 Oct 2017)

In its update yesterday, the Central Bank made the following welcome comments

"The Central Bank, with the assistance of its panel of experts, is evaluating the Phase 2 Reports
submitted by lenders. The primary focus of this ongoing assurance work is on customers
whom lenders have deemed not impacted and involves challenging the findings of lenders’
reviews through robust engagement in the form of on-site inspections, the review of relevant
materials and a substantial number of meetings with lenders.

While assurance work is ongoing in a number of lenders, from the assurance work completed
to date, the Central Bank is concerned that two lenders may have failed to identify
populations of impacted customer or failed to recognise that certain customers have been
impacted by their failures. The Central Bank is of the view that certain of these customers are
in fact impacted and accordingly entitled to redress and compensation. As a result of the
Central Bank’s challenges, the two lenders are reconsidering certain outcomes from their
reviews and are due to revert to the Central Bank by end October 2017. As the Central Bank
progresses its assurance work, other lenders will be similarly challenged."

I think it would be useful to list out all the cases we know of where the lenders deem some customers not impacted.

Off the top of my head...

1) Bank of Ireland staff mortgages
2) BoI switched from SVR to tracker and later fixed. Not given tracker back at end of fixed rate period.
3) AIB customers who had their mortgage rate set retrospectively at 3.67%
4) AIB customers with the pre-2006 mortgages and then fixed
5) EBS customers who fixed but were denied trackers on conclusion of fixed rate period
6) KBC customers (and others) where KBC claims that the Fixed Rate Agreement made it clear that they would lose their trackers
7) KBC customers in arrears whose mortgage restructuring was made conditional on giving up their tracker.
8) ptsb customers who took out a discounted tracker for one year and were put on 2.25% on expiry of that  year. They got a tracker, so ptsb deems that they are not impacted.
9)First Active customers (now Ulster Bank) who moved from tracker to fixed and tracker was not offered at the end of the fixed rate period?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (18 Oct 2017)

I think it would be useful to ask the Central Bank the following

1) List out all the cases where the lender says customers were not impacted and you disagree
2) Have you persuaded any lenders to change their minds and deem some customers as impacted whom they had considered not impacted - (presumably the 1,000 Ulster Bank customers who had switched to another lender.)
3) What happens if the lender sticks to their guns?
4) Give examples of cases where the lender says "not impacted" and you agree.
5) What can the borrower do if they are deemed not impacted?
6) Will borrowers who have been deemed "not impacted" be able to appeal that decision to the independent appeals panels? 
6) Will you be directing the lenders to write to all those whom they deem not impacted?


----------



## skinnylegs (18 Oct 2017)

Brendan,
          I would add this cohort to your list (and I  believe a large cohort involved)
6) BOI (and probably other banks) who tricked their "customers" off trackers through deliberately confusing documentation.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (18 Oct 2017)

Thanks Skinny

But you would need to be more specific.  Most of the banks had confusing documentation.

Brendan


----------



## Miakk (18 Oct 2017)

...can I add former First Active customers who moved from tracker to fixed and “prevailing tracker rate” was not offered at the end of the fixed rate period?
Some customers (eg poster Corktim) seem to have had their tracker restored, but not others like myself and poster Milo? (Hard to gauge how many have been restored or not as only a few posters on here)


----------



## skinnylegs (18 Oct 2017)

Brendan, 
      Why should I as the consumer need to be more specific? The whole problem with yours (and the banks) argument is that it puts the onus on the consumer to prove there was confusion.
 Simply put, if a contract or documentation causes confusion then the "failure" lies with the bank.


----------



## moneymakeover (18 Oct 2017)

Brendan

Great initiative

Personally, 


Aib pre 2006 mortgage , then fixed.
BOI switched to tracker, then fixed.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (18 Oct 2017)

Miakk said:


> First Active customers who moved from tracker to fixed and “prevailing tracker rate” was not offered at the end of the fixed rate period?



Thanks. Added.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (18 Oct 2017)

moneymakeover said:


> Brendan
> 
> Great initiative
> 
> ...



Thanks
The AIB one was there, but I had 2008 by mistake, so now corrected.

BoI added.


----------



## Sadhbs (18 Oct 2017)

Hi Brendan. On point 2 "0ff the top of your head" do you mean BOI staff who switched from Tracker to variable for a short period and then moved to fixed and were denied a tracker at the end of the fixed period


----------



## Brendan Burgess (18 Oct 2017)

Sadhbs said:


> Hi Brendan. On point 2 "0ff the top of your head" do you mean BOI staff who switched from Tracker to variable for a short period and then moved to fixed and were denied a tracker at the end of the fixed period



It was suggested by Moneymakoever 



moneymakeover said:


> Brendan
> 
> Great initiative
> 
> ...


----------



## Sadhbs (18 Oct 2017)

That's saying switched TO tracker then fixed. There are cases where we switched from TRACKER to VARIABLE for a short period then fixed and were denied a tracker at the end


----------



## Brendan Burgess (18 Oct 2017)

Sadhbs said:


> There are cases where we switched from TRACKER to VARIABLE for a short period then fixed and were denied a tracker at the end



I see. 

I suppose I was trying to document the main cohorts and not every single case. 

Is your particular case picked up by no. 1) above - BoI staff trackers? 

Brendan


----------



## Bikini Widow (18 Oct 2017)

Hi Brendan,

Can we add the EBS Cohort (currently deemed not impacted) who switched to fixed but were then denied tracker upon completion of fixed term.   Even though their EBS Mortgage contract stipulates they could change once during lifetime of mortgage without penalty. 

Many thanks,
BW


----------



## Sadhbs (18 Oct 2017)

Yes it is a BOI Staff Tracker but I don't think all staff switched from tracker to variable for a short while and then fixed rather than going straight from tracker to fixed


----------



## Brendan Burgess (18 Oct 2017)

Sadhbs said:


> Yes it is a BOI Staff Tracker



Hi Sadhbs

Again, rather than list each case, I have tried to list the main cohorts

The biggest cohort is the BoI staff cohort.  And that is caught in 1 above. 

Brendan


----------



## Gen360 (18 Oct 2017)

Hi Brendan,

My cohort would be - Ulster Bank. Started main mortgage as variable, 2006 got Top Up Mortgage ( which began as Tracker ) and ADVISED that i should change the main mortgage to Tracker as well, new contract issued and signed for both main and top up mortage, containing the infamous lines "For the lifetime of the loan" etc. Super, both now on Tracker, 2007 interest rates start to go up, maybe I should fix for a while, into the branch, do you think I should fix for a while? Yes, of course..sure the only way the rate can go is up. Three years later, Can I have my Tracker back please? No, we don't do them anymore... So complaint, complaint... discover Padraic Kissane...off to Ombudsman, back and forth with bank who eventually decide out of the goodness of their heart i can have the Tracker back on the Top Up but not Main. Frozen by FSO to go into the CB Review.. Ulster Bank will not even acknowledge if they are reviewing it never mind deeming as impacted. Despite bank telling me that this was a unique case I know of at least one other with same scenario, and anecdotally of others in different banks with similar who have been deemed impacted.


----------



## PFS7979 (18 Oct 2017)

Ptsb customers with 12 month "discounted tracker period to revert to the then prevailing tracker rate". Then subsequently written to on an unsolicitated basis 11 months into mortgage with a whole host of options including inflated tracker rate and deliberately low variable rate.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (18 Oct 2017)

Hi PFS

They are included in cohort no. 8 

8) ptsb customers who took out a discounted tracker for one year and were put on 2.25% on expiry of that year. They got a tracker, so ptsb deems that they are not impacted.

It is good practice writing to customers before the discounted period expires.

Not sure why you think that the tracker rate was "inflated" or that the variable rate was "low"? 

If you were offered a non-tracker rate of 3% today, or a tracker rate of 3.5%, which would you take?

Brendan


----------



## PFS7979 (18 Oct 2017)

Let me clarify. The contract makes no reference to any options after the 12 month "discounted margin". It specifically states "the then prevailing tracker rate will apply". 

To issue the options letter stating "your current rate option will expire on x/x/x" was a deliberate and misleading action by the bank to lure the customer off the tracker product.


----------



## Stitcher (18 Oct 2017)

Regarding the discounted tracker, I would maintain that the name itself was misleading. If was not reverting to the pre discount rate, then it was not a discount tracker but a one year tracker, and like a one year fix, the notion of their being rate options to choose from after the year should have been  made Very clear at the outset, not at the end.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (19 Oct 2017)

Stitcher said:


> I would maintain that the name itself was misleading. If was not reverting to the pre discount rate,



That is a good argument.  

Here is what ptsb says today about its one year discount variable rate 

*"12 Month Discounted Managed Variable Rates (MVRs)*

The discounted rate will apply for a period of 1 year from the date of loan issue, but may change within the 1 year discount period (and/or at any time prior to drawdown of the loan). After 1 year your discounted mortgage rate will revert to one of our managed variable rates in line with your LTV at the time of loan issue (this will be 0.50% higher than your discount rate)”).

The question is what did the advertising and contract say at the time? If they said that the discount rate is 0.6% which is a discount of .2% and will be 0.8% after the end of the discount period", then ptsb would have no defence.


----------



## Nicolafk (19 Oct 2017)

Former FA now ulster bank mortgage started of fixed to then go onto tracker was never offered tracker back definately impacted  but nothing from ulster bank


----------



## pyrite (19 Oct 2017)

AIB Staff Mortgages as well, there is thread about it as well in the Tracker thread
I took out a mortgage in 2007 part of it is on Tracker the other part was on a staff rate which is 3% plus BIK.  I think all of it should of been moved to tracker.
Have the following from staff business
The tracker rate was discontinued on 10/10/2008 therefore would not have been available as an alternative rate when all accounts were switched 'en masse'  to the Bank's standard variable rate.  The standard variable rate is the Bank's default rate, if you had of wished to avail of one of our fixed rate products or LTV rates, it would have had to be be notified in writing to Staff Business, signed by all parties to the loan.


----------



## LTL1234 (19 Oct 2017)

Hi PFS
We are in the same position as yourself & I have noticed you are active on the subject so wondered if you could offer some advice on what steps to take. I contacted PTSB 2 years ago & was told we weren't impacted as we took on the variable rate after the discounted tracker so no case to answer. Having heard the same case on the radio & Padraic Kissane speaking I contacted PTSB again today who are sending out copies of the original draw down offer, options letter etc.. How did you pursue your case & are you any closer to an outcome? Many thanks


----------



## Eamon Sweeney (19 Oct 2017)

Why are AIB pre 2006 mortgages deemed "not impacted"?


----------



## Missladycakes (19 Oct 2017)

Just reading this and a tad confused.  Had a 12 month discounted tracker that shot through the roof. This lead me to have major issues  making payments.  I know I signed on the dotted line but having lived in America I presumed there was a cap and it couldn't shoot up that high immediately.  They have a yearly cap rate up and down and a life of the loan cap rate again up and down.  So I was in a shitty situation with a very high payment I just couldn't fully pay. Over a year trying to get a split mortgage with three refusals and I eventually got one. No debt forgiveness here, just split into an affordable payment for now.  I know it's 8 on the list of mortgages deemed not impacted but is this going to change?  Are there others like me?
Thanks you for listening


----------



## Stitcher (19 Oct 2017)

Miss lady cakes, and LTL1234, 
it is so good to see others who were on discounted trackers getting in touch. I had one also , then it failed to revert to the pre discount rate because banks changed the term's and conditions without explaining. This is missing selling. I went to the FSO and lost, but my case is now part of the central bank review and not yet considered by them yet. My case is deemed not impacted by my bank.


----------



## moneymakeover (20 Oct 2017)

@Eamon Sweeney 
I agree
I can't understand how Aib can admit wrong doing and then continue to gouge another cohort of customers
The original break through happened when Ross Maguire threatened legal action
https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/the-irish-times-business/20150901/281496455045658

Does the pre2006 case require more threat of legal action?


----------



## LTL1234 (20 Oct 2017)

Hi Stitcher
On what basis did the FSO side with the bank? I signed up for a 25 year tracker a certain % over the ECB rate, at the time the product was discounted for the first 12 months. I really fail to see how the banks changing the terms of the mortgage I.e. Offering a fixed, variable & new tracker rate (ridiculously high) after 1 year is not clear cut, it should have been called a 1 year tracker so. There must be a number of customers in this position as it was the product widely available at the time.


----------



## Stitcher (20 Oct 2017)

Hi LTL,
Same as me. It depends on the date you took out your Tracker. I drew mine down in Feb 2008 just after the wording in contracts changed in favour of the banks without explanation to customers. I will message you in private to discuss further. 
Stitcher


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Oct 2017)

I am astonished that none of the banks has commented on the cohorts deemed not impacted. 

I don't think that the Minister commented on this either. 

The lenders have been generally ok with the people whom they  consider to be impacted. They have got the right rate and they are working through the refunds. 

But in December, there will be loads of people in the media again saying that they haven't heard from their bank. 

Brendan


----------



## ryflava (26 Oct 2017)

My thoughts exactly BrendanNothing has changed for us, with regard to anything the banks said yesterday.. I'm delighted that the people deemed impacted will hopefully be sorted soonbut I want what is rightfully mine, returned to me


----------



## Gen360 (26 Oct 2017)

My case was frozen by the FSO to into the review, Ulster Bank will not confirm if my case is impacted or not. I can only presume the consider it not impacted due the zero communication from them. Of course until they tell me I am not impacted I cannot reopen the case with the ombudsman. It is absolutely disgusting what the banks are doing. They could have told me a year ago if i was not impacted and I could have gone back to the Ombudsman. I have wasted so much time complaining to Ulster Bank, another call this morning from a number that rings once and hangs up straight away ( a google search shows it's Ulster Bank relationship manager ) so they can put on record that they tried to call me back. Really, really sick of it all at this stage.


----------



## Fakenews (26 Oct 2017)

Anyone who should have been on a tracker but who sold their property. Just because the property wasn't repossessed doesn't mean that they shouldn't be included. The difference in rates was too expensive for some people to continue to pay and so they bailed before repossession occurred in order to avoid any negative future impacts.


----------



## SaySomething (26 Oct 2017)

Gen360 said:


> My case was frozen by the FSO to into the review, Ulster Bank will not confirm if my case is impacted or not. I can only presume the consider it not impacted due the zero communication from them. Of course until they tell me I am not impacted I cannot reopen the case with the ombudsman. It is absolutely disgusting what the banks are doing. They could have told me a year ago if i was not impacted and I could have gone back to the Ombudsman. I have wasted so much time complaining to Ulster Bank, another call this morning from a number that rings once and hangs up straight away ( a google search shows it's Ulster Bank relationship manager ) so they can put on record that they tried to call me back. Really, really sick of it all at this stage.


Ring the Relationship Manager back if you can. I record all calls. It helps to have the calls on the record...


----------



## Gen360 (26 Oct 2017)

@SaySomething Tried to call it back but of course its a polite recorded message saying caller not available. I'm really not up to this anymore, it would appear they are engaged in psychological warfare. Most complaints usually end with "well you always have the option of going to the ombudsman". Just chasing my tail at this stage.


----------



## demoivre (26 Oct 2017)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I am astonished that none of the banks has commented on the cohorts deemed not impacted.
> 
> I don't think that the Minister commented on this either.
> 
> ...



What's wrong, and unacceptable in my view, is that the wrongdoers ie the banks, are the ones deciding which borrowers are impacted. Surely this should be done independently in the interests of fairness.


----------



## moneymakeover (26 Oct 2017)

CB should take effect €200m off each bank

like a bond

The CB should adjudicate every customer

If the bank plays ball they get a refund

If not CB keeps the bond and can put towards disputed customers


----------



## IdesofMarch (15 Dec 2017)

Brendan,

How about this cohort, (it will make Jeremey's eyes water) PTSB customers whose mortgage restructuring was made conditional on giving up their tracker mortgage (personally I have seen 11 such restructures, so I say the national figure runs into 100's)

BOI/AIB mortgages were the restructure involves adding 1% to their current tracker rate. ( I believe Pascal Donohue T.D. is talking to the CBI about this cohort)

The list goes on.


----------



## Pewter (21 Dec 2017)

@Brendan Burgess Hi Brendan, I think the list is a great idea.  I know that the first on your list was the Bank of Ireland staff cases and that's a kind of a catch-all.  However, I think a lot of staff who had been on a tracker at some point are now being picked up.  There is a specific point about those who were on the 2 year fixed rate (the one that the Bank referred to on its intranet site when closing the tracker.  As you know by now, that announcement said that this particular product would roll on to a tracker).The line from the bank was that the insite article was based on the best information available at the time.  In short they said it was a mistake.

The key point was that, if it was a mistake, it was based on the understanding we all had.  Bank policy was to offer trackers to fixed rates (staff new that), the MFA for the two year product referred to a tracker as a roll off (and no reference to variable), the products were set up on the system to roll on to trackers.  The insite article was based on everyone's understanding (including the author) and it was only rowed back on because contractual loopholes were found to get out from under it.

There was a large group of us on that product and some have been told they are impacted and others not (it seems like you had to have a tracker at some point in the past).  It seems that the bank is distinguishing between the different journeys that people went on to get on to the two year rate.  Some had been on a tracker, moved to a staff variable and then on to the two year.  I (and many like me) joined that journey at the second stage simply as a function of when I drew down in 2006.  What we all had in common was our belief in 2008.  We all knew the value of a tracker at that point and would have broken out of the fixed rate but our understanding (and the understanding of the Bank when it closed the tracker) was that we didn't need to.

It seems to me that the bank is using the different journeys as a way to not confront the substantial issue of the expectation created for those on the two year rate (and their own publication on insite which was a symptom of that expectation) and doing so, reduced the number being impacted.  Given that this has still led to a high number, I think there is a fair chance that they will get away with it.  John McGuinness opened the question by explicitly raising the communication during BoI's latest visit to the Oireachtas but Liam McLoughlin claimed not to know about it. I hope John comes back to it.

In short Brendan, I'd love to see the issue of the Staff 2 year fixed rate, the expectation that had been built around it and the insite article called out as a specific item on your list of those deemed not impacted.


----------



## TMH2017 (21 Dec 2017)

just re-confirm & agree with this point , all internal systems up to mid Nov'08 had all staff on the 2 year fixed rolling to the staff tracker but this was amended so that we would roll to the variable so the expectation/commitment was there from the Bank at outset of the fixed rate and up to that point but was subsequently reneged , unfortunate that the CB have not pushed more on this point with differentials vs. other cases that are deemed impacted minimal


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Dec 2017)

Guys this thread is about compiling a list of those deemed "not impacted"

It's not a thread to rehash and discuss your own story in detail or to just post more chat about how terrible the banks are.  All such posts will be deleted. 

Brendan


----------



## Pewter (22 Dec 2017)

@Brendan Burgess I understand Brendan (if I'm the culprit here).  It's just that the Bank were quite public about remediating staff.  I just wanted to point out that there's a very specific complaint that covered a large group that has been ignored. Genuinely didn't want to bang on about something that was covered elsewhere.


----------



## Darn40 (3 Jan 2018)

What about Kbc, who fixed from the start for 3 years pre November 2006, where do they stand.


----------



## Johen32 (7 Jan 2018)

This is my situation and they have yold me im not included in the investigation


----------



## Darn40 (7 Jan 2018)

@Johen32
Looks like they are only including
People who fixed after the flyer to brokers in November 2006 but who knows time will tell


----------



## deansmith27 (15 Jul 2018)

Deemed not impacted by ebs at this stage


----------

