# The missed cohort



## todo (7 Oct 2017)

I just like to get other peoples opinions on this.

If a customer signed up for a tracker mortgage, i.e signed the offer letter and sent it back.

In the days after the bank stop selling trackers and they call the customer as they have not drawn down yet, tell them about a great new fixed rate offer they have, but never mentions that they have not concluded a condition that reverts the mortgage to a tracker after the fixed rate ends.

Surely this is a breach of the CPC the bank have the knowledge the trackers are bad business and they are trying to push in flight customers who have signed up for trackers off them.

My question is, should this type of scenario be included in the central bank tracker review?


----------



## corktim (7 Oct 2017)

It’s the rate that you get when you take the funds that counts. The bank can change / amend / withdraw rates advanced they see fit before this.


----------



## todo (7 Oct 2017)

corktim said:


> It’s the rate that you get when you take the funds that counts. The bank can change / amend / withdraw rates advanced they see fit before this.


It seems unfair for a bank to set a trap for a customer to fall into.

All true, but the central bank tracker review is also looking at breaches of the CPC, should this particular scenario be included?


----------



## corktim (7 Oct 2017)

No trap as you could have gone elsewhere. This is not a breach of CPC.

Hard luck alright but the banks are entitled to make changes just as you were entitled to walk away if you wanted


----------



## todo (7 Oct 2017)

corktim said:


> No trap as you could have gone elsewhere. This is not a breach of CPC.
> 
> Hard luck alright but the banks are entitled to make changes just as you were entitled to walk away if you wanted



Not if you don't realise what they did at the time, why would you walk away, thats the trick, they don't mention what they are doing, just hoping that the customer will fall for it.

Principle 2
_acts with due skill, care and diligence in the best interests of its customers;_

Calling up a customer who has already signed up for a significantly better product, to push a product where they have complete control of the rate is not in the best interest of the customer.

Principle 6
_makes full disclosure of all relevant material information, including all charges, in a way that seeks to inform the customer 
_
When the bank does not seek to inform the customer of the real reason they are pushing the new product, so they can set the rate to anything they like. Simply removing a special condition and hoping the customer doesn't notice, is not seeking to inform, in my view, maybe i'm wrong.

I find it hard to believe the cpc hasn't been breached in the above scenario.


----------



## corktim (7 Oct 2017)

They are entitled to pull the tracker or decrease / increase any rate before you take the funds. Signing the offer letter does not entitle you to the rate or product on the offer letter.

Trust me, until you have actually taken the funds from them you can’t rely on the offer letter.


----------



## todo (7 Oct 2017)

corktim said:


> They are entitled to pull the tracker or decrease / increase any rate before you take the funds. Signing the offer letter does not entitle you to the rate or product on the offer letter.
> 
> Trust me, until you have actually taken the funds from them you can’t rely on the offer letter.



If they never pushed the latest offer the mortgage would have been drawn down on the original. They weren't withdrawing the tracker offer, they wanted to push a new product.

I just fail to see how the cpc has not been breached in the way I outlined above, maybe my understanding is incorrect.

If they had explained at the time the reason was "we don't want to give you a tracker", I would have went to a different bank.

Instead they removed a special condition and never mentioned the major change.


----------



## moneymakeover (7 Oct 2017)

Todo, Can you clarify exactly what happened

You signed up for a tracker

And then a new offer was presented to you by the bank?

All before the funds were drawn down


----------



## todo (7 Oct 2017)

moneymakeover said:


> Todo, Can you clarify exactly what happened
> 
> You signed up for a tracker
> 
> ...



There were actually 3 offers.

1st Offer was for a 2 year fixed which had a special condition to revert to tracker after the two years.
I rejected this offer and asked for a straight tracker mortgage as it was slightly cheaper.

2nd offer was for a tracker mortgage for the entire duration of the loan.
I signed this offer and sent it back to them.
No funds drawn down at this point.

3rd offer was for a 2 year fixed, bank called me and asked would I be interested in this two year fixed mortgage, they said it was better then the 1st offer as they had a new lower rate, never mentioned they had removed the special condition that reverted it to a tracker when the fixed period ended.

Funds drawn down on the 3rd offer.

I never noticed that the special condition was removed, up to the point of the third offer, we had been dealing with tracker mortgages.

I believe that this is a breach of the cpc as the bank knew exactly what they were doing, but never disclosed to me the real difference in the new offer they were pushing.

They set a trap, I fell into it.


----------



## roan (7 Oct 2017)

Extremely sharp practice on the part of the bank possibly breaching code of conduct! Loan was underwritten as a tracker then pulled it from under your feet before drawdown! Certainly didn't have your bests interests at heart! Lack of disclosure and transparency!


----------



## Sarenco (7 Oct 2017)

Was the reversionary rate clear in the final offer?  

That's really the key question.


----------



## moneymakeover (7 Oct 2017)

It falls in the category of consumer protection

Your understanding was tracker

There was a lack of transparency

I believe you have a case

Not every fixed rate will state you will return to tracker

I presume the complaint is with the FSOB

Probably for them to decide after the review


----------



## corktim (7 Oct 2017)

If they stopped offering trackers You just wouldn’t have got one. They would have told you to choose a different product.


----------



## todo (7 Oct 2017)

corktim said:


> If they stopped offering trackers You just wouldn’t have got one. They would have told you to choose a different product.



If they made that clear, I would have went with a different bank.


----------



## todo (7 Oct 2017)

Sarenco said:


> Was the reversionary rate clear in the final offer?
> 
> That's really the key question.



I have no entitlement to a tracker under contract law. The question I'm asking here is if the central bank should have forced banks to include mortgages like my case in the central bank tracker review. I know of one other case brought to the Fso for the exact same reason.


----------



## todo (7 Oct 2017)

moneymakeover said:


> It falls in the category of consumer protection
> 
> Your understanding was tracker
> 
> ...



I brought the case to the fso a few years ago. They basically looked at it from a contract point of view. I accept that contractually I have no entitlement to a tracker. They did not consider the cpc element. 

I'm really disappointed that the bank will not look at it under the central bank tracker review, they had led me to believe up until last week that it was included. 

My question is, if there is a cohort of consumers being missed in the review.


----------



## Sarenco (7 Oct 2017)

Well, I think it's difficult to maintain that there was a lack of transparency if the reversionary rate was clear on the face of the offer.  Accordingly, I don't see any particular reason why your mortgage would have been included in the review.


----------



## moneymakeover (7 Oct 2017)

Actually might be worth writing to Ger Deering or the central bank and ask that it be included in the review.

The CB could then consider it as part of the phase 2 sign off.


----------



## todo (7 Oct 2017)

Sarenco said:


> Well, I think it's difficult to maintain that there was a lack of transparency if the reversionary rate was clear on the face of the offer.  Accordingly, I don't see any particular reason why your mortgage would have been included in the review.



I've outlined my reasons above why I think they have broken the cpc. Clearly you see no breach.

Since the central bank tracker review has instructed banks to take the cpc into consideration I wondered what others thought of my situation and if other consumers with a similar story have been left out.

From what I see so far, only two posters see it as a breach of the cpc. 

I'm interested in more opinions.


----------



## todo (7 Oct 2017)

moneymakeover said:


> Actually might be worth writing to Ger Deering or the central bank and ask that it be included in the review.
> 
> The CB could then consider it as part of the phase 2 sign off.



I've emailed them many times. Hard to know if it has any effect as you just get the standard response. 

The bank confirmed last week that the central bank had signed off on phase 2 and that my mortgage wasn't considered under the review, that contradicts what they told me previously about it being part of the review. 

It doesn't look likely that my emails to the central bank had any effect, it such a shame that more information cannot be gotten from them.


----------



## roan (7 Oct 2017)

Sarenco said:


> Well, I think it's difficult to maintain that there was a lack of transparency if the reversionary rate was clear on the face of the offer.  Accordingly, I don't see any particular reason why your mortgage would have been included in the review.



"If the reversionary rate was clear on the face of the offer" 
It's not clear!!
Premature to state "I don't see any particular reason why your mortgage would have been included in the review"


----------



## Sarenco (7 Oct 2017)

roan said:


> It's not clear!!


How do you know that?  Have you seen the offer letter?


----------



## todo (7 Oct 2017)

Sarenco said:


> How do you know that?  Have you seen the offer letter?



This is going off topic, the question is do people think the broke the cpc in the way they presented the third offer. Just looking for a range of views points.


----------



## Sarenco (7 Oct 2017)

todo said:


> This is going off topic, the question is do people think the broke the cpc in the way they presented the third offer.


I don't think it is Todo.

The suggestion is that there was a breach of the CPC due to a lack of transparency regarding the reversionary rate.  If the reversionary rate was clear on the face of the offer then it is difficult to maintain that there was any lack of transparency.

It probably goes without saying that only the Central Bank can decide whether or not there has been a breach of the CPC in any instance.


----------



## corktim (7 Oct 2017)

Guys, I’f the most recent offer letter you signed and drew down on does not offer a tracker on expiry of the fixed rate I’d forget about it.


----------



## todo (7 Oct 2017)

Sarenco said:


> I don't think it is Todo.
> 
> The suggestion is that there was a breach of the CPC due to a lack of transparency regarding the reversionary rate.  If the reversionary rate was clear on the face of the offer then it is difficult to maintain that there was any lack of transparency.
> 
> It probably goes without saying that only the Central Bank can decide whether or not there has been a breach of the CPC in any instance.



Fair point. The only difference between the third offer and the other two offers is that offer 3 was missing the special condition on page 2.

As always the devil is in the detail, but I do think the bank was wrong not to point out such a big change over the previous two offers.


----------



## corktim (7 Oct 2017)

Up to you to have checked what you signed.

Most people here had the t&c’s of the offer letter they drew down on changed.

I don’t think you have any case unless the offer you drew down on mentioned a tracker.


----------



## Lightening (7 Oct 2017)

moneymakeover said:


> It falls in the category of consumer protection
> 
> Your understanding was tracker
> 
> ...



I ageee!


----------



## todo (7 Oct 2017)

Lightening said:


> I ageee!



Up to three!


----------

