# Successs!  Got Ulster Bank tracker back after a long fight



## Karolina77

I'm in the same situation as a lot of people - originally took out mortgage in 2006, fixed by end of that year for 2 years - looks like I should have been offered the tracker back at that stage but wasn't (it states in loan offer under general condition 2 about tracker rate being for term of mortgage etc etc).  Didn't sign anything then and went onto SVR - about a year later we re-fixed for 3 years and came off that last year and went onto a variable rate with slight discount for having U-First account which we've always maintained.  Only seeing all these posts and articles etc and really was astounded - looks like we've the exact same case as lots of people.  We sent a well worded letter into UB about 4 weeks ago asking for tracker to be re-instated and all overpayments since end of 2008 refunded back to us - got a reply in less than a week to say they are investigating and would be back to us within 10 working days - reply is about a week late so I'm just wondering how long others have been left waiting and really what I should do next.  Friends in similar situation to us sent a letter a week after and got a reply in about 10 days telling them to go away basically (they'll be asking for final response next).  Just strange we've heard nothing and they did?  Presume they are chancing their arm (again) with our friends as their case looks clear cut......


----------



## Karolina77

They came back to us about a month ago and offered us the tracker back from expiry of fixed term in 08 for one year but as we fixed in late 2009 and that form stated that we'd revert to an SVR they feel there has been no error on the part of the bank! It's ridiculous as all decisions we made after 2008 when they didn't give us tracker and we automatically reverted to SVR , came about because of them lying. We would never have fixed at that point. We were on an SVR by their doing. Signing a form saying we'd go back in SVR obviously was ok at that time. It's now with ombudsman and just hoping they agree with us. Is anyone aware of a case like ours? Our close friends who fixed in 2006 at exact same time as us but stayed on SVR since, got letter today re-instating tracker and huge refund. Thrilled for them and just hoping we get same outcome.


----------



## Karolina77

Oh the folder is getting bigger!! I will definitely document everything here when we hopefully get a satisfactory resolution! Thanks.


----------



## Ladylouth

*Might be in same boat as you*

We fixed our rate for two years in 2006, and again for five years in August 08, noticing now that we signed a very slightly different wording on our FRA - this one said that loan would revert to SVR if we didn't choose any other product offered, previous FRA stated return to Home Loan rate.  Have you had any luck with your case?  Nothing we signed indicates that the original loan was changing, so I think we may have a case.  You mentioned others you knew who got rulings from the Ombudsman.  Werre they rulings in their favour?


----------



## Bronte

Ladylouth said:


> noticing now that we signed a very slightly different wording on our FRA - this one said that loan would revert to SVR if we didn't choose any other product offered, previous FRA stated return to Home Loan rate.


 
Sneaky, but what else does one expect from banks.


----------



## Karolina77

Friends of ours got trackers back but they didn't have to go through ombudsman and hasn't fixed for a second time. I'm gonna post a new topic asking if anyone who had fixed again got tracker back.


----------



## emeralds

That is just the most excellent news!!


----------



## peteb

And don't forget if you have been collecting TRS you likely have a liability with the Revenue!!


----------



## Gerry Canning

Bronte said:


> It's not random, they have a 7 in 8 chance of the ombudsman giving the bank a favourable judgment. That's without statistics for those who fail due to other reasons, such as not in the time limit or those who give up.
> 
> Karolina well done, that's great news for you.


..................................................................................................................

Congrats Karolina..

Banks Like OMBUDSMAN because as Bronte says he ONLY finds in consumers favour in 1 in 8 cases.This 1 in 8 is an unbelievable and factual statistic. We need Ombudsman replaced if consumers are toget any hope!

Facts tell me consumers are safer going legal than trusting our appointed guardians.In most cases the fees may not be too onerous.


----------



## callybags

Bronte said:


> It's not random, they have a 7 in 8 chance of the ombudsman giving the bank a favourable judgment. That's without statistics for those who fail due to other reasons, such as not in the time limit or those who give up.
> 
> Karolina well done, that's great news for you.


 
Could this not be as a result of frivilous contacts with the ombudsman?

It costs nothing and is a relatively easy process.

Do the 7 in 8 decisions in favour of the banks give any indication of the nature of the complaints?

Perhaps if there was a nominal refundable charge the statistics would read a lot differently.


----------



## murphaph

There should be a nominal (refundable if found in your favour) charge to discourage frivolous complaints. If you want to object to a planning application you have to pay €20. It's done precisely to stop people objecting to everything even if it doesn't really affect them.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Karolina has summarised her story in this Key Post

Case study of getting tracker back from Ulster Bank


----------

