# Lost my First Active tracker after taking the joint owner's name off mortgage



## Best man (2 May 2016)

Hope someone can help with my query or was in a similar situation , 

I took out a tracker mortgage in 2007 with first active , joint mortgage , want to take off second applicant and approached Ulsterbank , advised need to take out new loan and will loose tracker rate , referred to Fso and central bank but they are saying the bank are entitled to do this , I have requested data request for original loan offer and t&cs , still awaiting for them to come back , just wondering has anyone been in this situation


----------



## Monbretia (2 May 2016)

You want to change the mortgage, yes the bank can insist that you apply for a new one at today's rates/requirements.   There is no automatic right to remove one name and keep same mortgage, that's not to say that they couldn't do it if they wanted to but of course they don't want to as it's a handy way of getting rid of the tracker.

There isn't going to be anything on the original loan offer or t&cs that will give you an option to remove a name and continue on if that is what you are hoping by requesting them.  

The bank could technically do the change you want but they simply don't want to and I don't know of anyway you can force them to do it.   If First Active still existed they would probably say the same thing especially as the loans were being underwritten under the UB rules at that time.


----------



## corktim (2 May 2016)

I agree with above. Would be a new mortgage at current rates.


----------



## xoxoxo (2 May 2016)

I successfully got my ex removed from the mortgage and kept my tracker. Was approx 5 years ago and a different bank. Had to apply for a new mortgage and met all the criteria etc. In fairness the bank were very fair and once I got speaking to the one person/correct person, removing the track was never mentioned - kept term and conditions the same. Think they mentioned if I was to increase amount or extend mortgage, I would not be able to keep tracker.


----------



## Monbretia (2 May 2016)

It was regularly done years ago with no issues and definitely in First Active but these days the desire to get rid of a tracker takes precedent over helping out the customer and being fair.  Realistically it's the same thing to the bank if the remaining account holder has sufficient income, they aren't losing anything but it's a handy way now to get rid of one more tracker off the books.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (2 May 2016)

Monbretia said:


> these days the desire to get rid of a tracker takes precedent over helping out the customer and being fair.  Realistically it's the same thing to the bank if the remaining account holder has sufficient income



- It is perfectly fair for a customer to lose their tracker in such circumstances.

- It is nowhere near being the same thing.


----------



## Monbretia (2 May 2016)

Why isn't it the same thing?  The bank will lose nothing, it's the same as if the original mortgage continued on as is to the end, they won't have gained or lost anything on the mortgage (other than the admin cost of deleting the name).

It was done regularly in the past, something must have changed to make the bank decide they wouldn't do it anymore and the reason is more than likely that they want rid of the tracker when the opportunity is there.

(Actually there was a charge levied on this to cover the admin cost, if I recall correctly it was around 70 quid or so at the time)


----------



## Gordon Gekko (2 May 2016)

From a risk perspective, how is lending to two people the same as lending to one person?

Banks have done plenty of awful things in relation to trackers, but in these circumstances they're dead right.


----------



## Monbretia (2 May 2016)

Obviously it is underwritten before taking off a name, the second named could be a non earning gambler even, who knows!   If the remaining person meets present lending criteria then I don't see an issue.   The couple could also have gone on to redundancy, illness, anything that could also have affected the future repayments.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (2 May 2016)

Monbretia said:


> Obviously it is underwritten before taking off a name, the second named could be a non earning gambler even, who knows!   If the remaining person meets present lending criteria then I don't see an issue.   The couple could also have gone on to redundancy, illness, anything that could also have affected the future repayments.



But it's a new contract at the current lending rates...

Your argument makes no sense. If they are redundant or ill, they wouldn't get the mortgage.


----------



## Monbretia (2 May 2016)

I'm not going to debate it any longer, it was done with no issues in the past to facilitate changing life circumstances people found themselves in subject to underwriting of course,  years before and during boom times on all types of mortgages, fixed/tracker/variable so something has changed the banks mind on now doing it.   

My point on the redundancy/illness was relating to the two person mortgage continuing on without removing name, there was no guarantee that in the future it would not turn into a bigger risk to the bank than a single mortgage due to life circumstances such as those happening.


----------



## Pinesky (2 May 2016)

Gordon Gekko said:


> But it's a new contract at the current lending rates...
> 
> Your argument makes no sense. If they are redundant or ill, they wouldn't get the mortgage.


This argument doesn't hold true in many circumstances. 
The loan balance might be much lower than that originally drawn down . the remaining customer may now be much stronger financially than the two were originally.
The remaining customer might be willing to give a lien on a substantial deposit .
What I'm saying is that each case must be looked at on its merits . I've no doubt circumstances could be constructed whereby the bank would be in breach of the CPC by not doing a deed of variation and allowing the customer keep the tracker as it could be shown that the bank is not acting in the customer's best interests .


----------



## Gordon Gekko (2 May 2016)

Pinesky said:


> I've no doubt circumstances could be constructed whereby the bank would be in breach of the CPC by not doing a deed of variation and allowing the customer keep the tracker as it could be shown that the bank is not acting in the customer's best interests .



You have "no doubt"? On what basis? Banks have behaved appallingly in relation to people's entitlement to trackers, but it can't be a one-sided argument.


----------



## Pinesky (2 May 2016)

Gordon Gekko said:


> You have "no doubt"? On what basis? Banks have behaved appallingly in relation to people's entitlement to trackers, but it can't be a one-sided argument.


I'm not going into a long debate with you but here is one example 
Original borrowers were accountant salary 60 k and stay at home wife, 300k borrowed .
Accountant now CEO ,salary 300k pa separated from wife no kids wants loan in sole name as part of separation agreement willing to give lien on 100k balance on deposit with bank .
Bank would not be acting in customers best interest if it didn't do deed of variation on borrowers .


----------



## Gordon Gekko (2 May 2016)

Pinesky said:


> I'm not going into a long debate with you but here is one example
> Original borrowers were accountant salary 60 k and stay at home wife, 300k borrowed .
> Accountant now CEO ,salary 300k pa separated from wife no kids wants loan in sole name as part of separation agreement willing to give lien on 100k balance on deposit with bank .
> Bank would not be acting in customers best interest if it didn't do deed of variation on borrowers .



Perhaps you should start an advocacy group for people who fundamentally change their tracker mortgages and want to retain their tracker rates.


----------



## Pinesky (2 May 2016)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Perhaps you should start an advocacy group for people who fundamentally change their tracker mortgages and want to retain their tracker rates.


Well done Sir


----------



## Sarenco (2 May 2016)

As a general principle, the CPC requires regulated entities to act honestly, fairly and professionally in the best interests of their customers and the integrity of the market.  There is certainly no requirement to give preferable deals to any individual customer(s).

Whatever way you look at it, a mortgage where a single borrower is substituted for joint borrowers is a new contract and will be assessed in accordance with a lender's current underwriting standards and, if approved, will be advanced on the basis of a lender's current terms.  

The fact that better terms may have been offered to a borrower in the past is simply not relevant - this is a new loan agreement.


----------



## Pinesky (2 May 2016)

Sarenco,
You are stating things as certainties .
The one thing we have learned over the last 8 years is that some parts of mortgage contracts are poorly drawn up and subject to differing interpretations.
"" This is a new loan agreement " 
It most certainly is not if both parties agree that it is not .


----------



## Gordon Gekko (2 May 2016)

Pinesky said:


> It most certainly is not if both parties agree that it is not .



That's good to know...


----------



## Sarenco (2 May 2016)

Pinesky said:


> "" This is a new loan agreement "
> It most certainly is not if both parties agree that it is not .



Of course it's a new contract!  The parties to the revised arrangement will be different from the parties to the original arrangement.  That's a certainty.


----------

