# They should give the rate when the fixed rate was broken and not when the fixed rate was due to end.



## George13 (27 Jul 2015)

_Copied from another thread as it's such an important point_

The bank might be more receptive to an argument that proved we should get the rate applicable at the date we actually broke out of the fixed term because it would remove people like S2K from the picture and prevent additional floodgates opening for them. My understanding is that while the applicable rate in late 2008/early 2009 was not as low as the standardisation sheet it wouldn't be the worst and certainly a lot better than 3.3%


----------



## phil (27 Jul 2015)

Would this mean if u broke out early it goes from date u broke out or date it was due to expire?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (21 Aug 2015)

Most people broke out in 2008 and 2009 when the rates were 2.25% or less. 

If permanent tsb or the Central Bank could be convinced that the day you broke out of the fixed rate was the appropriate date, then it would result in a significant additional refund. And of course, you would have a cheaper tracker for the rest of the duration of the mortgage. 

There are 358 people paying either 3.3% or 3.4%.

I think that this point will have to be tested in the High Court.  Does breaking a fixed rate count as "expiry"? Only the High Court can answer this question.


----------



## Raging Bull (21 Aug 2015)

From the language used in other threads i think the key word is actually "period" the period was broken early but still severed so that period is at an end in that case it should be the prevailing rate at the time 

It should be challenged in the court again harking back to J Hogan PTSB imparting novel approaches to benefit themselves


----------



## Bronte (21 Aug 2015)

I think the argument is much simplier than this. 

Today Friday the 21st August I break my fixed rate.  Today the rate for trackers with the PTSB is 2%. 

In six months time it might be 5%.  But nobody, the customer nor the bank can know this.  So today the only tracker rate the bank can offer me is 2%. 

The customers getting offered the six months hence rate now does not make sense.  One has got to go back to either one of two options a) the rate specified in your contract or b) the rate that would have been available on the particular day you broke, because the future rate did not exist and it's a nonsense to argue otherwise.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (21 Aug 2015)

Bronte

They are great points. 

One counterargument though is that people who broke out were given the SVR on the day they broke out. 

Brendan


----------



## AAM_User (21 Aug 2015)

I'd go so far as to suggest the tracker rate should be the one when we took out the tracker mortgage.  Bronte's point that nobody could know what the rate was applies here too.  The tracker rate could have been 5%+ECP on completion of the fixed portion & we would have had to pay it.  We negotiated & were offered a tracker mortgage at a specific time.  That's when the contract starts & when the rate should apply.


----------



## Bronte (21 Aug 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Bronte
> 
> They are great points.
> 
> ...



That's not a counter argument.  I don't see that.  It's actually an argument in support of what I said.  Because the got the SVR of the day they broke out.  Not the SVR of six months hence.

You get the rate available at the time you break out.  Period.  Only if you have a contract that says otherwise can it be different.


----------



## Bronte (21 Aug 2015)

I must also say that I cannot keep up with all the difference scenarios and contracts.  So the best option in general, as the bank was at fault, is that one must do the fair option, and I do not mean this to be the lowers rate tracker, just what is fair based on the facts.


----------



## Bronte (21 Aug 2015)

AAM_User said:


> I'd go so far as to suggest the tracker rate should be the one when we took out the tracker mortgage.  Bronte's point that nobody could know what the rate was applies here too.  The tracker rate could have been 5%+ECP on completion of the fixed portion & we would have had to pay it.  We negotiated & were offered a tracker mortgage at a specific time.  That's when the contract starts & when the rate should apply.



Let me go with this:

If you had a tracker of 1%
and
You fixed thru false actions or negligent actions of the bank
then
Yes you should get the original tracker

Is that what you are saying.

But a different scenario (more normal)

I'm on SVR
I fix at 4% for 2 years (my own choice no underhand anything)
I break mid way
I pay the penalty
I then choose the current SVR, another fix or a tracker *IF* it is available and I want it.


----------



## George13 (21 Aug 2015)

Have we confirmed per the PTSB calculations that the new tracker rate only applies from the date the fixed term should have expired and the SVR remains applicable for  the period prior? If this is the case we have another battle because it means they are ignoring the period from the date of the premature break to the date the fixed period should have ended. This is good in that we would probably owe them money if this was not the case (and the 3.25% margin was applied) but it's bad in that not only do we have to argue for a different rate we have to argue for a different start date for redress.


----------



## L John (21 Aug 2015)

No point in any more speculation on this. The appeals board is not going to agree with you as the offers were cleared by the central bank. 

A case needs to be taken on the basis of contract law, requiring contract law specialists. 

This is expensive so a group needs to come together to fund a test case.

The outcome of the test case will then set a precedent.  A better use of energy that going to the appeals board and arguing in the abstract


----------



## Terrve (22 Aug 2015)

George13 said:


> Have we confirmed per the PTSB calculations that the new tracker rate only applies from the date the fixed term should have expired and the SVR remains applicable for  the period prior? If this is the case we have another battle because it means they are ignoring the period from the date of the premature break to the date the fixed period should have ended. This is good in that we would probably owe them money if this was not the case (and the 3.25% margin was applied) but it's bad in that not only do we have to argue for a different rate we have to argue for a different start date for redress.


Yes, this is what the bank told me about my calculation. They ignored the period when we were on SVR and only calculated redress from expiry of fixed.
Perhaps an argument could be that the SVR should never have been offered at all as it was not in the original contract.


----------

