# Got my UB tracker back today - 4.2% to 1.15%. Compo?



## SirMille (10 Mar 2017)

We got our letter informing us that our rate is being reduced from 4.2% to 1.15%, that's huge.
No letter has been received regarding potential compensation.
Thanks to all who made this happen, you are wonderful people!
Mortgage is dropping from just over EUR2K to just under EUR1.5K
We plan on making extra payments to trying and pay the mortgage off early.
I hope this reduced rate doesn't prevent us from paying off early without penalty, does anyone know?


----------



## elcato (10 Mar 2017)

SirMille said:


> I hope this reduced rate doesn't prevent us from paying off early without penalty, does anyone know?


 On the contrary. The bank would welcome people overpaying trackers as they are not as profitable as SVRs.


----------



## SirMille (10 Mar 2017)

We got the mortgage in 2005 and have been variable from day one, paying about 4%+ IIRC.
Using the nice example from BB, it looks like someone with a 100K mortgage will get back about 10K, which is astonishing, and great!
As our mortgage was nearly 500K, does that mean we might get back 50K?

@elcato , I hope the new low rate of 1.15% does not start to ramp up anytime soon, but my dad thinks it might. Bit worried about that.

*Should *I phone UB on Monday and ask about the compensation? Or does that happen a few weeks after getting the new lower rate letter?


----------



## Threadser (10 Mar 2017)

[B said:
			
		

> Should [/B]I phone UB on Monday and ask about the compensation? Or does that happen a few weeks after getting the new lower rate letter?


Unfortunately you may have to wait a while longer before you get any compensation. It is almost three months since Bank of Ireland sent me a letter telling me that my tracker rate has been restored but I am still awaiting the details of the redress and compensation amount. I am sure if I had been undercharged by the same bank over nine years, it wouldn't take them that long to work out how much I owe them. Great to have the tracker back but very frustrating that the bank have not refunded me a single cent yet of the over charge amount.


----------



## SirMille (10 Mar 2017)

I think I will call them anyway, to make them aware that I have been alerted to the whole thing.

Getting back what was over-charged is great.

But if I did not pay a tax bill, or used the overdraft facility, or my credit card, I would be charged anywhere from 10% to 20% on the balance.
The Banks owe us all money, not just a simple repayment after they have been found out.

If they owe me/you 50K, shouldnt they have to pay 10% on that for a period of 5 years, maybe?? Am I grasping at straws?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (10 Mar 2017)

Hi Sir Mille

Well done!

No need to do anything in a hurry. 

You may have better things to do with a 1.15% mortgage than overpay it - e.g. contribute to your pension fund. 



SirMille said:


> As our mortgage was nearly 500K, does that mean we might get back 50K?



You will be getting a lump of cash.  Hard to know how much. But a 3% overcharge on a €500k mortgage would be €15k per year. The serious overcharging probably began about 6 years ago. 

Again, you could pay that into a pension fund, subject to limits. 

To be honest, I don't think you should bother ringing UB.  You won't get any useful information. There is no hurry. You will get interest on the refund in any event. 

Brendan


----------



## Zanna1 (10 Mar 2017)

Congrats SirMille, great to see more people getting sorted but I have a query, you say you were on variable from day one, are you saying  that you were never actually on a tracker rate and have now been put on a tracker rate?.


----------



## SirMille (16 Mar 2017)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Sir Mille
> 
> Well done!
> 
> ...



Thanks Brendan,

The more I think about this, the more I realise how much we need to put a test case against the bank(s).

How long would you recommend we hold tight before taking legal action? June 1st, July, August, or longer?
Normal solicitor or senior silk?

Am I correct in thinking, our expected over-charging repayment is in the area of EUR15K x 10 years = EUR150K+ punitative damages?

Would the punitative damages be something like credit card rates, i.e. 30% APR on the amount owed,
or perhaps more like commercial intercompany rates, like 2% per day on the sum owed, which would result in an astronomical pay-out.

I read that Padraic Kissane is charging 10% for his services, it sounds reasonable. What is his success rate?
I might engage him, provided his 10% is not on the over-charging repayment, and instead, only on the punitative damages he recovers.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Mar 2017)

SirMille said:


> The more I think about this, the more I realise how much we need to put a test case against the bank(s).



What on earth would be taking a test case about?  

You got the 1.15% rate. The people who have a case are those  who have been put on a rate of 3.25% or more. 




SirMille said:


> Am I correct in thinking, our expected over-charging repayment is in the area of EUR15K x 10 years = EUR150K+ punitative damages?



No, you are way too optimistic 

The difference between SVR and tracker is high now, but it was not always high.  You might get about €90k, but it's impossible to tell. Wait until you get the check. 

There are no punitive damages. 

You will be entitled to compensation for any losses which the overcharge has cost you.  For most people, the losses are very small. 

AIB is paying 15% of the refund automatically.  Most people will be happy with that. If you are not happy with it, you can go to the AIB Internal  Appeals Committee.  If you don't like their decision, you can go to the Ombudsman or the Court. 

I don't see any need for you to do anything yet. Wait until you get the letter and the compensation. Then decide whether you want to take and pay for professional advice. 

Brendan


----------



## justo (22 Mar 2017)

Brendan Burgess said:


> What on earth would be taking a test case about?



Surely the case would be about fraud based on the systematic overcharging of customers by banks over an extended period of time?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Mar 2017)

Fraud is a criminal charge and would require proof beyond reasonable doubt. That would be a very high target. 

I gather that there might be something called civil fraud - I am not sure if that is beyond reasonable doubt as well.  But given that SirMillie is going to get a refund of his money and compensation, what would he have to gain by risking a huge amount of money on a court case? 

Just to repeat, I think that the AIB guys who had a prevailing rate set retrospectively have a great case and should try taking a test case. 

Brendan


----------



## SirMille (22 Mar 2017)

But thats the point Brendan, I am not getting compensation, I am only getting back what is mine and what was illegally taken from me, according to a European high court.

Compensation: is making the bank pay me interest on the amount they took from me over the years, charged at credit card rates.

Ulster Bank are currently charging 19% on credit cards.
*19.2% Representative Annual Percentage Rate (variable)*


----------



## SirMille (22 Mar 2017)

For what its worth, I can demonstrate that I could have gotten a net return of 3.5% annually if I had had those funds available to me. Anybody could, its just dividend reinvesting.

But demanding UB offer me 3.5% is not a punishment, and I want them punished.

I want them punished the same way Credit Suisse was punished with a 5 billion dollar fine for their toxic mortgage backed securities dealings. 2.5 billion dollars to the SEC, 2.5 billion to the retail clients they screwed.

Why do you think reasonable doubt has not already been satisified?


----------



## peteb (23 Mar 2017)

SirMille said:


> We got the mortgage in 2005 and have been variable from day one, paying about 4%+ IIRC.



If you were on variable from day one where was the entitlement to a tracker?  So you agreed to the rate and you are aggrieved you paid that rate now that you inadvertently got placed on a tracker you didnt know you were entitled to?


----------



## SirMille (23 Mar 2017)

peteb said:


> If you were on variable from day one where was the entitlement to a tracker?  So you agreed to the rate and you are aggrieved you paid that rate now that you inadvertently got placed on a tracker you didnt know you were entitled to?


Pete, we should have been offered base rate plus a spread. They refused the lower interest rate, which they should have made available, but did not. A European high court ruled on this, and found in favour of borrowers.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (23 Mar 2017)

Hi Sir Millie

You clearly have no understanding of the process. Wait until you get the letter before heading off to the High Court. 

Brendan


----------



## justo (23 Mar 2017)

Brendan Burgess said:


> You clearly have no understanding of the process



With respect Brendan, I think you should play the ball and not the player. Do you really think the letters scheduled to be sent this month are going to appease all the people waiting at the end of their tether? I'd bet they will be a meaningless delay tactic. 



Brendan Burgess said:


> Fraud is a criminal charge and would require proof beyond reasonable doubt. That would be a very high target.



The banks (universally) overcharged perhaps 20,000 mortgage accounts for up to 8 years. All it takes is one whistleblower or the minutes of a meeting to indicate that a bank intentionally misled customers in order to avoid them returning to Tracker mortgages when they were entitled to. Already impacted customers who have asked for their files from the banks have found letters and information removed from their files. 

Indeed Brendan, fraud is a criminal charge, so their should be a criminal investigation. 

Correct me if I'm wrong Brendan, but is your view as follows: _Customers impacted by the tracker debacle should have their overcharged money returned with a small percentage of 'compensation', and a fee to have the figures independently corroborated. The banks should return this money at a time that suits them. No other action should be taken. _

I don't think the correct question should be 'if we took a case to court, would it be easy to win?'. I think we should be asking (being aware of all the horrible personal outcomes of the incident) 'What is the appropriate action that should be taken against an organisation that (knowingly or unknowingly) overcharged customers significant sums, each month, for many years, and then hounded many of these customers for their inability to make payments?' 

I think banks have replaced the church in Ireland in terms of people's fears to speak out against them and say it like it is. I say this because it is simply bizarre to me that the banks are allowed to set the rules even at this stage when they have all been caught with their hands in the cookie jar.


----------



## lukas888 (23 Mar 2017)

Justo of course a huge amount of people have been impacted and their lives ruined by 
the banks action,but to be fair to Brendan he was specifically referring to the poster who seemingly did not know that he was on the wrong rate until he received the letter in the post,and who clearly has no understanding of the process or the ongoing campaign.


----------



## SirMille (23 Mar 2017)

You are of course correct Brendan, apologies. I am new to the scene.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (23 Mar 2017)

lukas888 said:


> Justo of course a huge amount of people have been impacted and their lives ruined by
> the banks action,but to be fair to Brendan he was specifically referring to the poster who seemingly did not know that he was on the wrong rate until he received the letter in the post,and who clearly has no understanding of the process or the ongoing campaign.



Hi lukas

Thanks for explaining it better than I could do! 


Brendan


----------

