# Some people are wrongly attributing their problems to their loss of their tracker.



## Brendan Burgess (26 Oct 2017)

Some people have suffered a lot from losing their tracker mortgage.

But some have attributed all their problems to the loss of the tracker, when, in fact, the rate they were charged, was pretty much irrelevant to them.

Here are three examples







Borrower B's problems are clearly caused by the overcharging. If he had been charged the correct repayments, then he would not have been in arrears.

Borrower C's problems were not caused by the overcharging.  If he had been charged the correct repayments, he would have been in arrears of €30,000. So his problem was caused by the loss of his job or income or change in family circumstances or whatever.

Borrower A is a bit more complex. If they had plenty of income and savings, the extra €20,000 may have just been a financial loss and may not have impacted their life. But if they had to cancel their health insurance and make other sacrifices, they may well been severely impacted.

*And then there is the complexity of restructuring *
If a borrower paid what they could and engaged with their lender and their lender refused to restructure their mortgage or put them through the mill in order to do so, then there would be further compensation due.

However, what about Case D?




The lender and borrower engaged with each other. The mortgage was restructured so the payments were reduced to close to what they would have been on a tracker mortgage. 

So he was overcharged "only" €5,000. 

D cannot attribute all his problems to the loss of the tracker.


----------



## SaySomething (26 Oct 2017)

From a straight accounting point of view this makes sense.
However, I think you underestimate the mental load of an arrears situation. 

For example, Borrower C is in arrears, with the complication of the overcharge. For arguments sake, the difference is €500 per month between the repayments due on the correct rate, and those due on the overcharge rate. That €500 represents a mountain to climb, far bigger than a standard arrears situation. The higher the mountain, the more difficult it is to climb.

Saying all of this as a customer who would not have entered into the arrears process if they had been charged the correct rate.


----------



## justo (26 Oct 2017)

Hi Brendan: what about Borrower D, who were close to arrears many times so they decided not to have another kid because they could barely afford to provide for the kids they already had? 

Oh yeah, Borrower D was having upwards of €450 per month taken from their current account each month for 8 years.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Oct 2017)

Hi justo

Borrower D is a subset of Borrower A.  Maybe I could break them down into sub-groups - kept out of arrears with difficulty or overcharge didn't affect them.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Oct 2017)

SaySomething said:


> However, I think you underestimate the mental load of an arrears situation.



Hi SS 

I don't underestimate it at all.  I have dealt with many people struggling with arrears and repossessions so I fully understand it. 

Say that Johnny was a builder.  His income collapsed. This was the principal cause of his problems.  Even if the interest rate was zero %,  he would still have been in deep arrears.  The extra €20,000 has simply made the problem worse, but he would have had a big problem anyway.

Brendan


----------



## justo (26 Oct 2017)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi justo
> 
> Borrower D is a subset of Borrower A.  Maybe I could break them down into sub-groups - kept out of arrears with difficulty or overcharge didn't affect them.
> 
> Brendan



My response was a bit snippy... 

The point I wanted to make was that we can break people into quantifiable cohorts, but I would be reluctant to claim that just because someone managed on paper to keep their head above water it does not mean that they were not affected, and significantly so.


----------



## Fakenews (26 Oct 2017)

I had to pay off negative equity on the place I sold in order to get rid of it. I was losing money every month on a BTL. That negative equity payment should have been the deposit on a house. When we eventually bought a house the prices had gone up and so we had to pay more so we lost out twice. ( also lost out on all of the rental income as well)


----------



## joe351980 (26 Oct 2017)

Or borrow E.F or G. Couldn't afford mortgage and decided to pay other bills and continue into arrears. How different people dealt with this is entirely personal.
It has definitely changed my psych. It is very hard to judge who was more affected by this.
My house is next to the parents on a family farm and the taught of loosing it was immeasurable. It has alot more to do with than sums.
I think banks would like to have you on the 'independent' appeals committee all the same. Tried to put in a smiley there put wouldn't let me


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Oct 2017)

Fakenews said:


> I was losing money every month on a BTL.



I was referring to family homes in my first thread.  The Buy to Lets are a completely different ballgame, but the same principles would apply.  If someone was pushed into arrears and making losses by the overcharge, then they have a big claim. If, on the other hand, they were not paying what they would have been paying on a tracker, then I can't see why they have any loss at all. 

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Oct 2017)

joe351980 said:


> Couldn't afford mortgage and decided to pay other bills and continue into arrears.



Hi Joe

If they were in arrears by less than the amount of payments overcharged, then they were definitely impacted. 

If they couldn't afford a tracker mortgage because of the loss of income, then I don't see how they were.

Brendan


----------



## joe351980 (26 Oct 2017)

My grandfather always said it's not the amount of money you have its how you choose to spend it. Could you of scraped by to keep up the tracker repayment. 
Having a tracker mortgage would make 1 try alot harder to keep up repayments


----------



## Jespie1 (26 Oct 2017)

What about people who unfortunately ended their life because they were in arrears due to the banks not giving the correct rate of interest. Bank have to remember people and how they destroyed families


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Oct 2017)

Jespie1 said:


> What about people who unfortunately ended their life because they were in arrears due to the banks not giving the correct rate of interest.



They are in Group B.  These are people who were in arrears due to losing their trackers. 

Far more people were in arrears due to losing their incomes, and presumably far more of them committed suicide as well.


----------



## Jespie1 (26 Oct 2017)

Brendan Burgess said:


> They are in Group B.  These are people who were in arrears due to losing their trackers.
> 
> Far more people were in arrears due to losing their incomes, and presumably far more of them committed suicide as well.


It's not so black and white brendan trust me I know


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Oct 2017)

Jespie1 said:


> It's not so black and white brendan trust me I know



Sorry Jespie, I won't trust you.

If there is some cohort I have omitted, just let me know. 

This is fairly simple.  

Brendan


----------



## justo (26 Oct 2017)

Brendan - this thread seems particularly insensitive. Please don't simplify the complexity and sensitivity associated with a suicide by matter-of-factly slotting them into some pseudo categorization that you have created. 

If you think 'some people' (you don't explain who these people in the title of the thread are - making this thread even more News of the World like) are jumping on the bandwagon of affected customers please make your case in a more sophisticated way. 

A borrower 'A' could have found themselves in a deep psychological hole by prioritising their (inflated) mortgage repayments over their and their family's wellfare. 

Not everything can be explained with a spreadsheet.


----------



## skinnylegs (26 Oct 2017)

"what about people that committed suicide"
"they are in group B"

Brendan, 
Are you for real? 
For your own sake take a look over this thread and try to imagine what it would be like for somebody reading it who had someone close to them that committed suicide.


----------



## PFS7979 (26 Oct 2017)

A rather strange thread this... can I add a cohort...

Mr A and Ms B , young single professional people each buy a home on a tracker.

They meet, get married and set up home together. Both are moved off their tracker unfairly. Is it fair for this couple to apportion a large part of the blame for financial difficulty on being denied the correct tracker margin on their mortgages?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Oct 2017)

PFS7979 said:


> Both are moved off their tracker unfairly.



Hi PF

This is completely a new category for me. People have been taken off their trackers for getting married. 

This is about people who have been wrongly taken off trackers.  Not the reasons for which they were taken off trackers. 

If your couple was incorrectly taken off trackers and they fell into Category A,B or C, then that would determine if their arrears and other losses were caused by the loss of their tracker. 

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Oct 2017)

skinnylegs said:


> "what about people that committed suicide"
> "they are in group B"
> 
> Brendan,
> ...



Hi Skinnylegs

You are missing the point of this thread. 

If someone was wrongly taken off their tracker 
And if, as a result of this, they were pushed into arrears, 
And as a result of the arrears, they committed suicide 

Then I think that their estate may have a claim.  

But if someone was €50,000 in arrears, but had been overcharged €20,000, they would have been in €30,000 arrears anyway.  So perhaps they would have committed suicide. 

We have to be honest here.  If someone commits suicide, there are usually many, many factors.  But people are blaming arrears, when it's the cause of the arrears which may have been the real cause. 

Brendan


----------



## joe351980 (26 Oct 2017)

If someone was in arrears of 50,000 due to an added 20,000 over charge you can't say that they may have committed suicide without the overcharge. They already were in arrears of 30 and could get through it. 

Where or what is the straw????


----------



## PFS7979 (26 Oct 2017)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi PF
> 
> This is completely a new category for me. People have been taken off their trackers for getting married.
> 
> ...



Who was taken off trackers for getting married? Never did I make such an obsurd statement.

But there are cases where both husband and wife, home owners and mortgage holders on an individual basis before getting married who have had both trackers rates taken off them incorrectly.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Oct 2017)

PFS7979 said:


> Who was taken off trackers for getting married? Never did I make such an obsurd statement.
> 
> But there are cases where both husband and wife, home owners and mortgage holders on an individual basis before getting married who have had both trackers rates taken off them incorrectly.



Sorry PFS 

I am finding it very difficult to understand you.  You linked getting married to losing trackers and now you say this is absurd, which I agree with. 


Can you specify exactly what happened in the case you are talking about and why they "had both trackers taken off them". 

Brendan


----------



## peemac (26 Oct 2017)

I can certainly see where this is coming from and you see it in many guises. 

I sell smelly candles. A few years ago an irate customer blamed me for a fire in his house because he bought the candle from me. 
The candle did contribute to the fire, but the main cause was because he put it on a window beside net curtains which caught fire from the normal flame of the candle. 

So it was his stupidity rather than the candle,  but I couldn't say that,  but the fire report did. 

People,  when they have problems, always want to look to blame someone else for what in some circumstances are their own shortcomings especially if its "the big bad bank / company / brand" - quite natural to do so.


----------



## joe351980 (26 Oct 2017)

So you got a independent report to determine cause. Sounds logical.


----------



## Just saying (26 Oct 2017)

Hi all, off topic maybe, but for the sake of the sensitivity of the issue's being addressed I would just like to clarify: To "Commit" in the case of suicide is to insinuate a crime took place. Such as in for example, to commit a crime. Suicide is no longer a crime as far as I am aware. Therefore, the correct terminology would be to say; "one took one's own life", or "died by suicide". This is not to criticise, just to give clarification. It's a sensitive area, so for the respect of others going forward who might be directly affected, careful language in regards to suicide should try to be used. Kind Regards.


----------



## Sligolive (26 Oct 2017)

Brendan, I think your analysis may be overly simplistic and does not take account of all other sources of finance that may have been exhausted by impacted customers. I also feel that the thread may not be the most appropriate platform to discuss such sensitive matters such as suicide.


----------



## nonie (26 Oct 2017)

What an inappropriate and insensitive thread all round.


----------



## PFS7979 (26 Oct 2017)

Brendan,

Simple as this: my wife lost her property and her lender acknowledged significant overcharging. I have received consistent professional opinion that my mortgage is impacted.

I find this thread pointless at best. I suggest taking it on board and moving on.. your web site on the whole is an excellent and helpful resource and well done for that.


----------



## Just saying (26 Oct 2017)

In quantitative terms Brendan's analysis in his view does make sense, especially when viewed through a balance sheet. However, if viewed at in qualitative terms it becomes a little more complex. For instance, the Irish banking crisis, and the bailing out of bondholders etc. People losing employment as a direct result of this, and the recession. To say people who got into serious arrears due to employment loss are just looking for someone to blame is a bit of a broad statement Peemac. Especially when you consider the time period this relates to in economic terms. If people were wrongly taken advantage of as a result of the tracker scandal, then that in and of itself is a crime/fraud. So yes, even those who fell behind on arrears have a right to voice their grievances, whether or not they are due compensation.


----------



## LS400 (26 Oct 2017)

It's a perfectly just Title and Tread, and for what it's worth I believe it to be factual.

Don't start asking it to be backed up with this or that, it's my belief,  but some here seem to think that if you agree with with the OP, you are a heartless individual.

Suicide is devastating for all concerned, let's not throw it into every discussion, just to get your point across.


----------



## moneymakeover (26 Oct 2017)

Increase in taxes.... The banks
USC....... The banks
Drop in rental income..... The banks
Pay freeze/ job loss... The banks
Drop off in construction... The banks
Invalid removal of tracker... The banks

Note person with rental property paying interest only goes from 1.1% to 5.6% (BOI)
Repayments say €500 jump to €2,500

Who to thank for harassing phone calls to both husband and wife? Daily. Multiple times per day.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Oct 2017)

PFS7979 said:


> Simple as this: my wife lost her property and her lender acknowledged significant overcharging. I have received consistent professional opinion that my mortgage is impacted.



That is not simple. That is just a bit of a story. 

And what has that to do with marriage? 

Sorry, but you are making no sense at all. 

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Oct 2017)

moneymakeover said:


> Note person with rental property paying interest only goes from 1.1% to 5.6% (BOI)



Hi mm 

Did BoI do full-term interest only mortgages for buy to lets? 

Under what circumstances did you lose your tracker?

Brendan


----------



## moneymakeover (26 Oct 2017)

10 years interest only originally.. I would expect that could have be renewed or switched
originally SVR
Switched to Tracker
Switched to Fixed... 5 years in 2012 ... not returned
Still not deemed impacted


----------



## PFS7979 (26 Oct 2017)

Brendan,

Re-read my original post. The point I was making, was to explain how how my wife and I came to holding two tracker mortgages. We each bought independently before we met. Thereafter both our lenders mishandled and overcharged both mortgages.

Its pretty damn simple when the lender overcharges. If you wish to find fault or pick holes in my choice of words when articulating a point go ahead. I'll leave it that.


----------



## Jespie1 (26 Oct 2017)

LS400 said:


> It's a perfectly just Title and Tread, and for what it's worth I believe it to be factual.
> 
> Don't start asking it to be backed up with this or that, it's my belief,  but some here seem to think that if you agree with with the OP, you are a heartless individual.
> 
> Suicide is devastating for all concerned, let's not throw it into every discussion, just to get your point across.


This was not a flippant comment LS400. We as a family have been through the mill the last couple of years. Thankfully I found my spouse in time as I happened to come home from work early   He was working every hour to make sure our mortgage was always paid. He completely burned out and I don't want to think about what would have happened if I did not happen to come home early that day. So please can you just think about what you are saying before putting it for all to see. Honestly nI'm so shocked by how this thread has gone. We are very lucky that we have a fantastic extended family that helped us.


----------



## gnf_ireland (26 Oct 2017)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Maybe I could break them down into sub-groups - kept out of arrears with difficulty or overcharge didn't affect them.


@Brendan Burgess  I am not sure of too many people who would not be affected by being charged between 2% and 3.5% higher interest rates. Very high earners would most likely have higher mortgages, especially if they are boom time as a lot of people extended themselves. Chances are everyone would be impacted.

Lets say couple E is relatively comfortable, has a mortgage of say 400k, 2 kids and combined income of 200k. They have paid 500 euro a month extra on the mortgage - so over 8 years this is ~50k. But they managed to pay it, save some money, go on holidays, upgrade the car etc.

BUT, they may have done things differently for the last 8 years if they had not had to pay the money. Maybe one of them would have taken a VL package being offered at work to allow them spend more time at home with the family. Maybe one of them would have gone to a 3 or 4 day week to ensure a better work-life balance; maybe they would have done some further education at some stage along the way; maybe they would have taken a once in a lifetime 2 month break in the Australia with the kids; maybe they would have pumped that extra money into a pension fund and be in a much better position to retire early - who knows!

Or maybe they went further and because they were paying 4.5%, they actually overpaid the mortgage further to try and reduce the burden of the debt. So instead of being down 50k, they are actually down 100k (cashflow wise).

Or maybe its as silly as deciding they could not justify spending 5-7k on to go on the Lions Tour in 2013 to relive the memories with some good friends from when they were backpacking in Australia in 2001 and now one of those friends has passed away so they will never get that chance again !

Or maybe its as nasty as knowing they have to stay in a job they hate, with a boss who bullies them/harasses them, as they know they need the high paying job to keep the ship afloat, and the mental health issues that has resulted over the years from this entrapment.

Either way, I cannot see any scenario where someone would not be impacted by this, no matter how wealthy. I agree, there are degrees of impact and they are probably the least impacted financially - but who knows what other non-financial impacts it may have had on them over the years, and these are the hardest to quantify.


----------



## joe351980 (26 Oct 2017)

Very good point gnf. The cost to customers is far greater than the monetary value. And no spreadsheet can determine how much an individual was affected.


----------



## gnf_ireland (27 Oct 2017)

I have read the thread and it is a very sensitive topic to a lot of people. I think at an absolute stretch, it might be worth comparing it to say the Guildford 4 scenario (and I have said absolute stretch).

Using a spreadsheet, you could say that the 4 spent 16 years in prison and if you equate an average industrial wage of say 25k a year to them during this period, it equates to 400k lost income for being in jail. Add 25% 'compensation' and you get a nice even 500k calculation.

But, there are lots of factors individual to each of them:
1. The Conlon family suffered more than the others, as they were also caught up in the Maguire 7, and one of them passed away in jail
2. Hill was held after the acquittal for a second crime he was later acquitted for. Does this compound the suffering endured - I would assume it would and a form of extended bullying/harassment
3. Carol Richardson was 17 at the time, lost her 'lifeblood' to prison and died of cancer in 2013 (as did Gerry Conlon). How much of the 'causes' of the cancer were as a result of that 16 years in prison. By the time she was released from prison, she had spent practically half her life there.
4. Gerry Conlon is known to have turned to drink/drugs after his release - no doubt as a result of a dangerous cocktail of a substantial payout and coping with life on the outside
*I know very little about Paddy Armstrong so I will not comment*

The point being - on paper/spreadsheet they all suffered the same - 16 years in prison for a crime they did not commit. 
In reality, their treatment in prison, how they coped both inside and when they were let out, the personal impacts of missing family occasions such as funerals etc means each case is unique and needs to be assessed on their own merits. This is practically impossible to do at scale, and even more so as to understand the full impact hindsight is required.

The only option is to try and categorise in some manner and try offer a level of compensation based on the non-financial impacts on the person, and support an independent resolution mechanism. 
I don't think anyone would suggest that the same compensation should be given to someone who missed a Lions tour because they could not justify the cost should be compensated the same as someone who did not have a foreign family holiday for a decade, or someone who ended up feeding the kids beans & toast and wearing coats indoors to avoid turning on the heating. But on paper they all did not go into arrears, so are the same !


----------



## Mortub2005 (27 Oct 2017)

Hi Brendan,

I most definitely do not blame the banks for all the stress over the past 10 years. Yes my husband was working in construction and lost his job that was the fault of the downturn. Unfortunately for us we would have been able to make our mortgage payments if we were on tracker. Having to deal with the banks caused a lot of anxiety for me and we would not have had to do this if we were on correct rate. So for this I do blame them.


----------



## Waver (27 Oct 2017)

I think this theory ignores the psychological impact of debt.

A smaller debt may have seemed more manageable and allowed wronged customers to may adjustments to tackle the debt. A very large debt which was caused partly by the wrong tracker and partly by other factors may have seemed insurmountable and caused customers to give up.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (27 Oct 2017)

Mortub2005 said:


> Having to deal with the banks caused a lot of anxiety for me and we would not have had to do this if we were on correct rate. So for this I do blame them.



Agree fully with you. 

That is the point I am making.  The loss of the tracker caused problems  for people. For some people it was the main or only cause of the problem. For others, it was not the main cause of the problem.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (27 Oct 2017)

Waver said:


> A smaller debt may have seemed more manageable and allowed wronged customers to may adjustments to tackle the debt.



Hi Waver, you have a point here. 

If the person has arrears of €21,000 and was overcharged by €20,000, I think that they could say that their problems were caused by the overcharging.  Most of us would pull out all the stops to avoid early arrears, but when we have insurmountable arrears, there is less point in making sacrifices. 

But in the example I gave of €50,000 arrears with €20,000 overcharging, they would have been in deep arrears anyway. 

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (27 Oct 2017)

I have added a Case D to the initial post and would be interested in feedback.

However, what about Case D?




The lender and borrower engaged with each other. The mortgage was restructured so the payments were reduced to close to what they would have been on a tracker mortgage.

So he was overcharged "only" €5,000.

D cannot attribute all his problems to the loss of the tracker.


----------



## joe351980 (27 Oct 2017)

Would partially agree. Put the stress of actually having to deal with the banks is again hard to compensate for. Also there is that uniquely Irish feeling of owning your home.


----------



## gnf_ireland (27 Oct 2017)

Before I comment, I do want to say that I do fully emphatise with you here, but would just like to make one point



Mortub2005 said:


> Unfortunately for us we would have been able to make our mortgage payments if we were on tracker.


I think your wording here needs to be slightly changed - you would have been more likely to afford the mortgage repayments if you were either on your original tracker rate or a similar low cost tracker.
If the terms were prevailing tracker rate, and the bank had a tracker rate of 2.5% + ECB available, it may have been a different matter. It was the interest rate that caused the issue.
Obviously everyone's mortgage contract terms can be slightly different - so without reviewing these it is hard to know. I agree with most that in hindsight there were probably not strong enough and can be misinterpreted. But the fact is still that in 2008/09/10- low cost trackers would not have been available as prevailing tracker rates - so the issue may still have happened.



Mortub2005 said:


> Having to deal with the banks caused a lot of anxiety for me and we would not have had to do this if we were on correct rate. So for this I do blame them.



Absolutely - the banks behaviour both from a customer contact point of view and from dragging their heels point of view has been terrible. The behaviour of PTSB on the customer who won the FSO case, then went to the High Court and won and the bank still threatened the Supreme Court on them before changing their rates is unforgivable. They could have changed the rates after the FSO case and only changed them back in the event they lost the High Court case.
I have said in a separate thread, I believe anyone impacted should have a 0% rate applied from the date they are identified until the date the issue is resolved, and even better a payment freeze during that window also. Anyone who has been delayed in being identified should have their compensation doubled, and anyone who complained and lost should also have their compensation doubled.


But that said, I do not believe everyone who is claiming to be a victim of the tracker scandal is necessarily going to win. I believe a lot are now trying to create cases for themselves to see if they can benefit from this in hindsight. Understandable to a degree, but many of these are unlikely to be successful..


----------



## Foxy007 (27 Oct 2017)

I don't agree. We were one of these 'people' and were over charged 12k plus a year....That 12k is the cost of IVF, the cost of a car, the cost for a lot of people of running a household, food for kids schooling for kids. I lost my job 3 times through redunancies and the stress and worry was way too much for me. I suffer hugely from anxiety now and this whole discussion brings the madness we went through all back.  We also had a house with pyrite and had to struggle with that during while paying excess money we didn't need to pay for a house we couldn't live it.  I don't think anyone here knows the full extent of much this has impacted people lives. Like it or not people do actually need money to live too. We were living day to day. 5k, 500K or 500 euro is still money. I don't usually mention all the stuff we went through as a result of not having that money when it was badly needed but clearly it is necesssary.


----------



## gnf_ireland (27 Oct 2017)

joe351980 said:


> Would partially agree. Put the stress of actually having to deal with the banks is again hard to compensate for. Also there is that uniquely Irish feeling of owning your home.



Agree, this is the hard part. The easy part in all of this is calculating the financial cost to the mortgage holder based on the overpayments

What cannot be calculated easily is the non-financial cost and the sacrifices the customers had to make to stay out of arrears, or the pressure the banks directly applied put those who went into arrears. In effect, the human cost

@Brendan Burgess  - it may make sense to split this into two parts. The financial cost and the human cost, and see if there is any precedence on how the human cost of something like this can be calculated, either here or internationally. A person who went into arrears may have less 'human cost' than someone who did not - because maybe they strategically defaulted or other factors such as loss of job were contributing factors. This is why I think there is no real correlation between the two.

There are lots of complex variables into the calculation of the human cost, including the nature of the person themselves. It would be interesting to see what other countries have done in similar cases (assuming there are any ???)


----------



## gnf_ireland (27 Oct 2017)

Foxy007 said:


> We were one of these 'people' and were over charged 12k plus a year....That 12k is the cost of IVF, the cost of a car, the cost for a lot of people of running a household, food for kids schooling for kids. I lost my job 3 times through redunancies and the stress and worry was way too much for me. I suffer hugely from anxiety now and this whole discussion brings the madness we went through all back. We also had a house with pyrite and had to struggle with that during while paying excess money we didn't need to pay for a house we couldn't live it.



@Foxy007  I think you have hit the nail on the head here, for both arguments
You went through a lot in the 8 year period, and this has caused you a lot of anguish and pain and you will no doubt have to live with the impacts of this for a long time. In my view it is irrelevant as to whether you went into arrears or not - there was suffering caused
BUT
Not all the suffering was a result of the loss of the low cost tracker. Some of it was, but there were other factors including loss of jobs 3 times and pyrite, and no doubt other things. How do you allocate suffering between each of these factors, what about the cumulative effect where stress compounds itself, what about the impact it potentially had on a relationship/family both immediate and extended. 
But the problem is not all is as a result of the loss of the tracker - which is why I say the human cost is complex !

This will be the challenge - calculating the human cost for people who were impacted (and my view is everyone was, one way or another)


----------



## Brendan Burgess (27 Oct 2017)

Foxy007 said:


> That 12k is the cost of IVF, the cost of a car, the cost for a lot of people of running a household, food for kids schooling for kids.



Again, you are missing the point completely. 

If you delayed having children, because you were overcharged, you can certainly claim that the cost of IVF should be factored into the compensation. 

But if you would have been in €30k arrears anyway, then you can't blame the overcharging. You blame whatever it was which pushed you into arrears e.g. the loss of your job.

Brendan


----------



## gnf_ireland (27 Oct 2017)

Brendan Burgess said:


> You blame whatever it was which pushed you into arrears e.g. the loss of your job.


Can I take the liberty of rewording this line slightly
"You need to apportion blame all contributing factors which resulted in the difficulty, including loss of job and loss of tracker"

The point is you don't have to be in arrears to have suffered. I am sure many people who barely struggled through suffered as much, if not more, than some of those who went into arrears.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (27 Oct 2017)

gnf_ireland said:


> The point is you don't have to be in arrears to have suffered.



I have made that very clear in the first post 



Brendan Burgess said:


> Borrower A is a bit more complex. If they had plenty of income and savings, the extra €20,000 may have just been a financial loss and may not have impacted their life. But if they had to cancel their health insurance and make other sacrifices, they may well been severely impacted.



I will say it again. 

People who were in arrears due to the overcharging, who would not otherwise have been in arrears, have been very badly affected. 

People who were overcharged and have kept out of arrears, may have been very badly impacted. 

People who were in arrears well in excess of the overcharge, had problems whose main cause was something else.

Brendan


----------



## gnf_ireland (27 Oct 2017)

Brendan Burgess said:


> People who were in arrears well in excess of the overcharge, had problems whose main cause was something else.


I agree with you, subject to a slight rewording ;-)
People who were in arrears well in excess of the overcharge had other contributing factors and cannot reasonable attribute all of their difficulties are as a result of the overcharging.


----------



## robe (27 Oct 2017)

I disagree Brendan. 
Take case c.
So a btl tracker with ptsb .put onto the magic rate of 3.35 % above as opposed to the correct rate of 1.1% above .
So overpaying by 9k a year on a 400k mortgage .
Struggle to keep payments going receive 1100 a month in rent , running costs 250 so 850 left to pay mortgage .
So paying €13,400 per year,  rent in covers €10200 so leaves a shortfall of €2800 .
Which has to come from somewhere,  so borrow and spend savings to keep up.
Tenants move out ,.house destroyed needs 4 to 5 k spent on it .
No funds available....ptsb no help .
House remains vacant ... no rent in ...arrrears build very quickly. 
If the tracker rate was correct 1.1% above the btl would show a nice profit (€5800) and money would be available from savings to refurbish the house .


----------



## Brendan Burgess (27 Oct 2017)

Hi Robe 

I was referring to family homes, so maybe it's different for buy to lets. 

It seems clear from your numbers that the arrears are due solely to being overcharged by the lender. There is no other cause as far as I can see.  Therefore this is Group B and not Group C. 

Of course, but to let is risky, and the failure to be able to let it is probably a big cause of the arrears. That is not the bank's fault.  

Brendan


----------



## robe (27 Oct 2017)

Not being able to let is due to lack of funds to carry out repairs and redecorating. 
Lack of funds is due to overcharge .
But yes I know you are talking about family homes , but I'm sure this scenario could be related to a family home .


----------



## gnf_ireland (27 Oct 2017)

Brendan Burgess said:


> It seems clear from your numbers that the arrears are due solely to being overcharged by the lender. There is no other cause as far as I can see.





robe said:


> Tenants move out ,.house destroyed needs 4 to 5 k spent on it .



Not sure its fully down to the overcharging. There is another major factor in this that the tenants destroyed the house so it could not be rented out so the income stream disappeared. Had the house not been destroyed by the tenants, then the arrears would not have been as bad.
If you as a landlord had selected different tenants or you had inspected the property more frequently it may also have avoided the need for the refurbishment. I don't think you can blame the bank for the tenants you selected!



robe said:


> If the tracker rate was correct 1.1% above the btl would show a nice profit (€5800) and money would be available from savings to refurbish the house .





robe said:


> Lack of funds is due to overcharge


That's assuming the savings had not been spent and were available solely for this. I can fully accept there is a negative cash flow impact as a result of the overcharge. 
In theory you could also blame the government, due to increased taxes such as property tax, NPPR, reduction in allowance interest rates etc also caused a negative cash flow impact.

Was it all down to the overcharge? No, I don't think it was. In any 8 year period, it will be very difficult to pin everything on a single issue. It is a combination of factors - it does not make it any better or any worse though!




robe said:


> But yes I know you are talking about family homes , but I'm sure this scenario could be related to a family home



Not sure how to be honest, as the issue here is a combination of increased outgoings and reduced income as a result of the overcharge. The function of a family home is not to generate income, so hard to be hit on both sides. Any loss of income is probably not a result of the overcharge.
At an absolute stretch, you could say that the family were renting a room for 10,000 euro to help with the mortgage. However, due to the additional stress the mortgage caused, including a decision to dramatically reduce the heating costs, the tenants moved out as the house was no longer a nice place to live. The mortgage fell further into arrears as a result. 
But the tenants could have moved out for any reason - including nothing to do with the family, so would be a hard one to argue.


----------



## joe351980 (27 Oct 2017)

Brendan have u any idea how banks should work out compensation?

 Do you believe the compensation in any of the cases in general was sufficient? Or how do you reckon banks came up with a figure without consulting a group representing affected customers.
Again it seems arrogant of the banks. Pay them x and sure they'll be grand. If not jump through a few hoops first.


----------



## Mortub2005 (27 Oct 2017)

@gnf_ireland my husband did not lose his job until early 2010 which is when I had to engage with the banks. The difference to us is 500 euro pm which would have made a big difference to us. I know we would definitely have been able to make the repayments at the rate we have which is 1.05 + ecb. What I found the hardest was we were in a deal never missed a payment and they still phoned my place of work every couple of weeks. I find the anxiety still hard to deal with.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (27 Oct 2017)

joe351980 said:


> Brendan have u any idea how banks should work out compensation?
> 
> Do you believe the compensation in any of the cases in general was sufficient? Or how do you reckon banks came up with a figure without consulting a group representing affected customers.
> Again it seems arrogant of the banks. Pay them x and sure they'll be grand. If not jump through a few hoops first.



ptsb paid automatic compensation of 10% of the amount overcharged.   
AIB is paying 15% automatic compensation.

This is not an offer. It is not an estimate. It is, in effect, a downpayment. 

No one has to claim it. No one has to justify it.  At the start, one had to sign a form from ptsb to say you wanted it, which was bizarre. Now the banks pay it automatically. 

In any other situation, you would have to claim compensation and they would argue with you and make you an offer.  This way, everyone got an initial payment and about 80% didn't ask for any more.

Brendan


----------



## gnf_ireland (27 Oct 2017)

Mortub2005 said:


> What I found the hardest was we were in a deal never missed a payment and they still phoned my place of work every couple of weeks. I find the anxiety still hard to deal with.





gnf_ireland said:


> Absolutely - the banks behaviour both from a customer contact point of view and from dragging their heels point of view has been terrible.


Just to clarify, I am not in any way defending the banks behaviour towards their customers in general. I believe that once a customer is engaging with the bank, there should never be any contact with then other than agreed channels. They should never be allowed to phone a place of work unless it is given as a formal contact number by their customer. I can understand a bank trying to reach a customer to engage with them, but once they have engaged it is a different matter.



Mortub2005 said:


> The difference to us is 500 euro pm which would have made a big difference to us. I know we would definitely have been able to make the repayments at the rate we have which is 1.05 + ecb.





gnf_ireland said:


> I think your wording here needs to be slightly changed - you would have been more likely to afford the mortgage repayments if you were either on your original tracker rate or a similar low cost tracker.
> If the terms were prevailing tracker rate, and the bank had a tracker rate of 2.5% + ECB available, it may have been a different matter. It was the interest rate that caused the issue.
> Obviously everyone's mortgage contract terms can be slightly different - so without reviewing these it is hard to know. I agree with most that in hindsight there were probably not strong enough and can be misinterpreted. But the fact is still that in 2008/09/10- low cost trackers would not have been available as prevailing tracker rates - so the issue may still have happened.



I completely understand what you are saying, and all this is predicated on the fact you would have been given a tracker rate of 1.05%. My understanding of the majority of issues under review is they relate to people who were on trackers, fixed for a period and on expiry/breaking, they were not offered a tracker again when they should have been. Whether this was the original tracker rate on the mortgage contract OR the prevailing tracker rate (at the time the fixed rate expired) is dependent on the mortgage contract.
My point above, was simply if the banks had kept trackers beyond 2008/09, it is likely that the tracker rates would have been higher and therefore you may not have been eligible for the 1.05%+ECB (unless it was stated in your contract).
The issue may also not have happened if the SVR rate was more aligned to the European average and you were asked to pay 2.5% rather than 4.5%+. The issue may also have arisen if the ECB rate did not fall to 0.25% and stayed around the 2% mark.

I completely agree that this has had major impacts on families but from a financial and human level.


----------



## gnf_ireland (27 Oct 2017)

Brendan Burgess said:


> No one has to claim it. No one has to justify it. At the start, one had to sign a form from ptsb to say you wanted it, which was bizarre. Now the banks pay it automatically.
> 
> In any other situation, you would have to claim compensation and they would argue with you and make you an offer.



Out of interest I done a google on "compensation for miscarriages of justice". Seemingly in the UK, its not good enough to have your case quashed any more to get compensation - you have to prove you were innocent. Many believe the only way this could happen is if someone else is found guilty. I have to admit I found that bizarre to say the least


----------



## joe351980 (27 Oct 2017)

Prevailing means current or at the time. The tracker rate at time of signing contract was still prevailing. And was relevant to that contract. Tracker rates offered to new customers were not prevailing for customers who drew done their mortgage 1 or 2 years previously. Wether they fixed or not


----------



## robe (27 Oct 2017)

My point is more that the effect of the overcharge,  means you are down that money . In my case I had 9k less because of the bank , and had they not taken this from me I would of been more finiancially able to deal with problems such as the remnants moving out or some other finianciall problem .
So I had drained my resources (savings and people I could borrow from)
The tenants moving out and leaving the house in a state was the straw that broke the camel's back,  it could of been the heating going or any other large finianciall outlay. 
So ptsb did Rob me of my ability to overcome this problem.


----------



## gnf_ireland (27 Oct 2017)

joe351980 said:


> Prevailing means current or at the time. The tracker rate at time of signing contract was still prevailing. And was relevant to that contract. Tracker rates offered to new customers were not prevailing for customers who drew done their mortgage 1 or 2 years previously. Wether they fixed or not



@joe351980 I think this definition may very easily end up with the courts to decide.

If I am told that I am going to be able to buy something at the prevailing price in 6 months time, I would not expect this to be today's price. I would expect this to be the price when the event comes to pass.
Similarly, if I am told I would roll over to the prevailing tracker rate in 2 years time, I would not expect this to be the current tracker rate today, but the current tracker rate in 2 years time.

If it was the tracker rate from today or date of drawdown, then surely the exact tracker rate should have been used (ECB +1.05% - or whatever), rather that a term such as prevailing? Or use the term tracker at date of fixing/draw down?


_>>And was relevant to that contract. Tracker rates offered to new customers were not prevailing for customers who drew done their mortgage 1 or 2 years previously. Wether they fixed or not_
This will be a matter for someone else to decide. It can be argued both ways, but I know how I would read it
I agree that the current/prevailing tracker rate for a customer who signed up to a 1.05%+ECB is irrelevant - whether that be yesterday or a year ago, as that is the rate they are charged in the contract terms. This is no difference to someone who signs up for a fixed rate where the rate is specified.

A customer who fixes has broken this prevailing (ie current) tracker rate and fixed at a totally different rate, by their own choice, for a period of time. After this event expires (matures or breaks out early), then the current/prevailing rates are important to them, not the historic ones. I would argue that the rate the customer signed up to 3 years previously is historic rather than current and irrelevant. 

But that said, that would be my interpretation of the word "prevailing" - but it is not my decision. It will be agreed somewhere and I think it will end up being decided by the courts.


There is another way to decide this. Do the banks have a case where someone fixed for 1-2 years in 2005/06 who was entitled to a tracker rate on maturity. The scenario needed is where a tracker was still being offered at the time when the fixed rate matured. Were they offered (ignore what they accepted), the initial tracker rate from the date of drawdown, the tracker rate from the date the fixing period commenced or the tracker rate on the date of the fixing period ended. The answer may help work out how the banks interpreted the term at the time (not with hindsight).
This would clearly set the precedence as to what the banks done at the time? I assume banks would have customers whose fixing periods expired just before the removal of the tracker mortgages ?


----------



## gnf_ireland (27 Oct 2017)

robe said:


> The tenants moving out and leaving the house in a state was the straw that broke the camel's back, it could of been the heating going or any other large finianciall outlay.
> So ptsb did Rob me of my ability to overcome this problem.



Absolutely accept and understand this. 

My point being, there are multiple factors at play and I accept PTSB may have a role in that, it is not all of it.  I cannot see PTSB accepting that all of the blame is on their shoulders. This is different to Brendan's scenario B, where all the blame is squarely on the banks shoulders (arrears < overcharging). You stated you were in scenario C (arrears > overcharging) but it was the banks fault because of the circumstances listed. Brendan states there are other factors at play (in this case tenants damaging the property) which means its not 100% the banks fault. So in my view, it is still scenario C here (sadly!!). However, you are fully entitled to a completely different viewpoint


----------



## joe351980 (27 Oct 2017)

Gnf, people took out tracker mortgages and fixed for 2 years. They took out the tracker mortgage on date of draw down. This rate is prevailing within the ban and can be described as the then prevailing rate. Again it is a rate specific to this mortgage and time of offer and for the lifetime of a tracker mortgage. Any other rate prevailing within the bank is not specific to this mortgage. 

I think the banks tried to put the blame on customers for breaking fixed rate early or choosing SVR. If banks taught that they could set a 'prevailing' rate as they seen fit, they would have. 

Banks tried to deny people cheap trackers. But what about the expensive trackers they could of forced on people. I think they studied both options and to make out the customer was a fault was the one banks used.


----------



## gnf_ireland (27 Oct 2017)

joe351980 said:


> They took out the tracker mortgage on date of draw down. This rate is prevailing within the ban and can be described as the then prevailing rate.


Absolutely - the 'then prevailing rate'



joe351980 said:


> Again it is a rate specific to this mortgage and time of offer and for the lifetime of a tracker mortgage.


Ok, I will agree to this where the contract clearly states that this is the case and the use of the term 'lifetime of the ...mortgage' is included in it.
If not, a tracker mortgage is simply defined as a variable rate mortgage tracking against the ECB rate.



joe351980 said:


> Any other rate prevailing within the bank is not specific to this mortgage.


Agreed, at this point in time when the draw down happened. If the person had stayed in this rate for the duration of the mortgage, they would still be on it and there are thousands of customers who are still on this rate at drawdown - as they never changed.




joe351980 said:


> I think the banks tried to put the blame on customers for breaking fixed rate early or choosing SVR. If banks taught that they could set a 'prevailing' rate as they seen fit, they would have.


No one is blaming anyone for changing to an SVR rate or Fixed Rate at any time in the lifetime of the mortgage. This is a personal choice people made at the time.
The argument, which I am now going to bow out of, is whether this results in the clock being reset on the prevailing rate or not. So is the tracker mortgage rate the rate as defined at drawdown for the lifetime of the mortgage, or does the resetting of the clock mean the new prevailing rate is used from this point onward. I will let the legal eagles argue this one out.
Of course, if the lifetime of the mortgage is stated in the contract terms, then that is a different case



joe351980 said:


> Banks tried to deny people cheap trackers. But what about the expensive trackers they could of forced on people. I think they studied both options and to make out the customer was a fault was the one banks used.



Agreed they did deny people cheap trackers. The question is back to the wording of the contracts  and what they say. I don't have one, but if all that is there is 'prevailing tracker rate', a very good lawyer will be needed.

Of course you have the right to think what you like - but can it be proved. I am sure someone up high made a decision to remove the tracker products and even though where they were entitled to one. I am sure the banks got lots of legal advice at the time - but I am not going to say that I agree with you that "prevailing tracker rate" means the rate at drawdown. Sorry, but I don't.   I suggested that a set of customers whose fixed term matured just before the removal of the tracker should be used to see what was meant back then (not now)


This phrase has a lot of ground to cover yet, so think I will now abstain from the discussion and wish you all the best in getting the best possible rate when it comes to the restoration time.


----------



## joe351980 (27 Oct 2017)

Bowing out myself. 1 more thing. What was the mortgage at draw down for the lifetime. Tracker, Fixed or SVR


----------



## gnf_ireland (27 Oct 2017)

joe351980 said:


> What was the mortgage at draw down for the lifetime. Tracker, Fixed or SVR


No, a mortgage was drawn down for a set amount of money for a set duration. 

The mortgage rate can be tracker, SVR, LTV and fixed during the lifetime of the mortgage and can change between them based on customer decision and available rates on offer from the bank. 
There is no such thing as a tracker mortgage for the lifetime of the mortgage - a tracker rate can change to a fixed rate if the customer wishes.


----------



## ppcjbm (27 Oct 2017)

Tracker rates may not be for the lifetime of the loan but under ptsb notes on home loans under the consumer protection act tracker margins are for the life time of the loan .


----------



## Bronte (28 Oct 2017)

I'm A for one loan on an investment. It had zero effect on me, I was overcharged by circa 10k, the bank spotted it by accident, and repaid me by reducing the amount owing. I didn't even think if looking fir compensation as to me I'd suffered no loss or hardship.

I'm still though mad as hell about what I still think was an incorrect rate applied on another loan. So there I'm at a financial loss but I could afford it so when I think of others I can't really feel like a victim but it still mad at the ombudsman's decision. I got a token cheque for the banks handling of my case.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (28 Oct 2017)

Bronte said:


> I'm still though mad as hell about what I still think was an incorrect rate applied on another loan.



That is a good point.  I have never been severely impacted by being overcharged. However, I have been very annoyed by it. So do I get compensation for annoyance or time spent getting the error corrected? 

Brendan


----------



## Foxy007 (29 Oct 2017)

Leaving this thread alone. I think what people need to really remember here is people (like myself and our family and our home) had in fact their lives changed in many, many negative ways..with lasting impact for a lot of us regardless of whether we were landlords or not, in arrears or not. There was no way one individual could actually help themselves in fact..... I know because I tried.  If its uncomfortable reading or to take on board then maybe there needs to be more public statements made by those of us who were actually impacted badly.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (29 Oct 2017)

Again, this thread has nothing to do with how badly you have been impacted.

It's about the cause of the bad impact.

In many cases, it was the loss of the tracker. 

In others, the loss of the tracker had nothing to do with it as the person was paying little or nothing anyway.

Brendan


----------



## Bronte (30 Oct 2017)

Brendan Burgess said:


> That is a good point.  I have never been severely impacted by being overcharged. However, I have been very annoyed by it. So do I get compensation for annoyance or time spent getting the error corrected?
> 
> Brendan



I was even more mad at dealing with them over the matter.  It took a very long time to go via the ombudsman etc.  I did get compensation for the fact of how they dealt with me, but it was exhausting. 

I actually don't really mind an error, not at all, not if it's real and one gets an apology, that's fine.  I hear ads for banks on the radio about how lovely they are, well they are not if they have a deliberate policy of keeping you on hold, of making you feel like a pest or an idiot.  Take Amazon for example, their customer service is excellent, ditto Aer Lingus, but not Ryanair.  Take Irish Water - a disaster to deal with.  But the ESB are on the ball.  Now why is that.  Ryanair has a deliberate policy of no phone calls, if you ring Aer Lingus they are so nice and well trained.  Ulsterbank it is my belief has a core belief that the customer is always wrong.  Now having said that I've met and spoken to great staff in there, including the guy who spotted the 10K mistake and immediately put it to rights.


----------

