# Ulster giving me back my tracker, but changing the contract wording.



## notabene (2 May 2018)

I have been dealing with Ulster Bank since January regarding the return of my mortgage to Ulster Bank from AIB. The contract (or loan offer which they call it)which they presented was not the same as that which was offered in the original loan offer/contract.

The contract has been cleaned up in order to favour the bank. For example, the term ' for the life of the mortgage' has been taken out of the new contract. This was an express condition in the previous contract, in that, it established the tracker rate as the default rate for the mortgage. This was confirmed by the FSO in their judgement in my case, stating, that the rate should have automatically returned to the tracker rate at the end of the mortgage.

This has further implications down in the line, in that, if interest rates went high again, and you decided to fix again, instead of returning to your tracker rate as your contract would have deemed, you would now be eligible to be put on an SVR.

The bank asserts that this is a 'substantive remedy' and that they have no further obligations in this regard. They also feel that the terms which they have taken out of the old contract, were 'ambiguous terms' and they do not want an 'ambiguity issue' to arise again. This of course is smoke and mirrors - there was no ambiguity issue in many of the Ulster Bank Contracts, the facts were quite clearly laid out, until Ulster decided to change what the meaning of 'home loan' meant when it suited them.

We have argued, had meetings and emails over the last five months and on the understanding of issuing a solution on Monday, the issued a final response letter, basically like it or lump it. They have declined to issue a generic copy of the loan offer in order to have it sent into the Central Bank to have them confirm with the original contract, to confirm this is what they meant by return to original position. They will not further refund monies accruing since January until the loan offer has been taken up and the mortgage returned to them. Neither have they presented an alternative solution which might have been presented for example if you could not get mortgage approval.

At this stage the only option is again back to the FSO or Court as well as their own appeals panel, unless a customer was happy to accept lesser terms than what they were previously on, fairly outrageous, though not surprising behaviour from them.


----------



## moneymakeover (2 May 2018)

I wonder will the change of CEO at Ulster Bank signal change at Ulster Bank
Like it did at BOI when Francesca McDonogh took over


----------



## peemac (2 May 2018)

I would suspect that any fixed rate form will have a cast iron condition that you will forfeit any condition about returning to tracker,  so I reckon its a mute point.

The fso had said to me that kbc's wording was legal and I could not return to a tracker. So even though this is ulster bank,  I can't see a big difference. 

The central bank said that they had not made it clear that going on a fixed rate would mean relinquishing the tracker and that was the basis of the tracker examination. 

All new fixed rate contracts tell you very clearly that you are relinquishing your tracker rate and there is no ambiguity .

Hence I think its a non argument that will see two years of aggravation and likely no real difference.

Sometimes it can be better to accept a 95% deal.


----------



## notabene (2 May 2018)

FSO ombudsman Bill P - said that by the wording of the contract the tracker was the default rate for the mortgage post fix - so i'm not so sure it's a moot point. Will be seeking legal advice with regard but if it's been established already in a quasi legal forum....

New contracts might - and that is why it's imperative to have the old contract restored with the contractual conditions which were afforded to the customer previously, not ones which are more in favour of the bank. They have been told to restore customers to the position which they had been previously in and those were better contracts, it is sharp practice at best to try otherwise

Also, if it is a moot point etc why the issues in providing a copy of the contract so i it can be compared with the old contract - a watermarked, generic, pdf copy is not an outrageous request and one would argue that it is eminently sensible to get legal advice on any contract prior to signing it. 

Just to make a point on the ambiguity - for ulster bank contacts such as mine, there was certainly no ambiguity - that is a made up notion on the part of the bank in order to muddy the waters


----------



## notabene (2 May 2018)

@moneymakeover  one can only hope but to be honest....


----------



## Brendan Burgess (3 May 2018)

notabene said:


> This has further implications down in the line, in that, if interest rates went high again, and you decided to fix again, instead of returning to your tracker rate as your contract would have deemed, you would now be eligible to be put on an SVR.



Hi notabene

I suspect that the FSO would decide in your favour, but you would be achieving nothing, but hassle for yourself and UB. 

I think you are overdoing it here to be honest.

1) You are never going to fix your mortgage rate.  Say you are paying ECB + 0.8% at the moment. The cheapest fix from Ulster Bank is 2.6% currently.

If ECB rates rise or if they are expected to rise, they fixed rate will rise as well.

So there will never be a situation where you should fix your mortgage rate. 

So this change to the contract is just not relevant. Ulster Bank is correct to clarify their contracts.

2) It's very clear to me that banks who issue a tracker rate of ECB +0.6% for the life of the mortgage intended that to mean that it would be for the life of the mortgage unless the borrower and lender came to some other agreement.  It is perfectly fair for the lender to offer someone a fixed rate of 3% for 5 years but that they are giving up their tracker, as long as the Fixed Rate Agreement tells the borrower that.

You scored a massive financial victory over Ulster Bank.
You scored a massive PR victory over Ulster Bank

Your doggedness has empower others and helped thousands of others get their trackers back.

I applaud you for that.  But you should be satisfied with that and not fight false battles.

Brendan


----------



## todo (3 May 2018)

I tend to agree with notabene here.

Hold out to get the original terms of the mortgage.

Its not unheard of for banks to set a lower fixed rate to try and get people to move off there tracker margin.

If the original contract stated that you should be on a tracker for the life of the loan, then I think its only fair that your new contract has the same terms.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (3 May 2018)

todo said:


> Its not unheard of for banks to set a lower fixed rate to try and get people to move off there tracker margin.



Very, very unlikely to happen as her tracker rate is so low and the banks won't want to mess around with trackers again.  Anyway, notabene understands this clearly and would not fall for it.





todo said:


> If the original contract stated that you should be on a tracker for the life of the loan, then I think its only fair that your new contract has the same terms.



But so what? Any fixed rate change would contain a clause which would over-ride this. 

Brendan


----------



## nonie (3 May 2018)

Notabene isn't overdoing anything to be fair. She's asking for her original contract to re instated. To be put back in the position she was in prior to the Bank's "error". If it wasn't for people like notabene and her determination this industry wide review would never have happened. I just fear for anyone's health that has had to battle a Bank and all it's legal prowess for this many years. Notabene should be applauded for taking all of this on which has ultimately helped so many others.


----------



## todo (3 May 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Very, very unlikely to happen as her tracker rate is so low and the banks won't want to mess around with trackers again.  Anyway, notabene understands this clearly and would not fall for it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry Brendan, I don't trust any of the lenders, if they can pull a fast one to make more profit they will regardless of the past.
No one will be held accountable for this, the bonus culture is coming back, they'll do whatever it takes. So yes they are likely to mess with trackers in the future, if they can make better profits.

She should be given her contract back based on the original terms.


----------



## notabene (3 May 2018)

hi Brendan,

Totally get your point - and I would say I'm unlikely to fix it again, particularly after all the hassle, though you never do know and though it looks like interest rates are going to remain low for a bit longer than thought that won't always be the case. You could preemtively fix based on them rising quickly - i'm not saying I would, given all that has happened but if you did you could end up on a lower rate for that a period

The terms were not confusing or ambiguous until Ulster decided they didn't suit them and tried to redfine the home lone rate as an svr rather than the tracker which was very clearly defined in the original contract.

However, they have been told to carry out specific performance ie  are to return the customer to their original position and they aren't - I also feel that if they win on this then that does not bode well for proper compensation which is still to be appealed for. I think too it's important to ask why they wouldn't issue a generic for comparison purposes? Surely correct advice is always to get someone to check a contract before it's signed. 

It's about attitude also and their treatment over the last few months regarding all of this has been absolutely appalling. They are full of time wasting and insincere apologies. I absolutely don't relish the idea of the FSO again or court or anything else but the fact remains it's not the original contract.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (3 May 2018)

notabene said:


> it looks like interest rates are going to remain low for a bit longer than thought that won't always be the case. You could preemtively fix based on them rising quickly - i'm not saying I would



Hi nb

Your current mortgage rate is 0 + 0.8%.   The cheapest fixed rate from Ulster is 2.6%

Let's say that ECB rates rise by 3%. 

Your tracker rate will rise to 3.8%.  It is very likely that Ulster's cheapest fixed rate will rise to 5.6%. You will not be fixing. 


Let's say that they give you back the original wording "The tracker is for the life of the mortgage"
Ulster Bank is not under any obligation to offer you a fixed rate.  
If they do offer you such a rate, they are fully entitled to make it a condition that you sign saying "I understand that this changes the terms of my loan offer and that on conclusion of the fixed rate I will be on the Standard Variable Rate". 

So you are fighting a pointless battle on this. I see no point in it, and you should save your energy for the compensation battle which is a real battle.

Brendan


----------



## notabene (3 May 2018)

That will be the real battle alright - will get legal advice and then make a decision


----------

