# Wrong T&Cs Issued



## cremeegg (13 Sep 2014)

I wrote to my bank recently making a request in connection with my offset mortgage.

The request was declined because according to the bank it was not permissible under the terms and conditions of my mortgage. 

The letter the bank sent me referred to a copy of the T&Cs enclosed.

Now the T&Cs they enclosed were just a standard document, but they are not the same as the T&Cs on my mortgage. Basically the standard T&Cs are for a home mortgage but mine was written as an investment mortgage. The bank claimed in the past that the product was only ever for home mortgages but eventually they accepted that my was an investment mortgage. 

My question is this, does the fact that the bank have issued a false document to me with the intention of obtaining an advantage (i.e. not lending me money at a very low rate where they are contractually obliged to) constitute a criminal offence of fraud. What does anyone think?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (13 Sep 2014)

As you are alleging a criminal offence, the state would have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.  As it's much more likely to be simply an administrative error, I doubt very much if the DPP would pursue such a case. 

Brendan


----------



## cremeegg (22 Sep 2014)

Well I have written to them pointing out that the T&Cs issued to me were incorrect and expressing the hope that this was an oversight and offering them the opportunity to make a correction.


----------



## rob oyle (22 Sep 2014)

cremeegg said:


> My question is this, does the fact that the bank have issued a false document to me with the intention of obtaining an advantage (i.e. not lending me money at a very low rate where they are contractually obliged to) constitute a criminal offence of fraud. What does anyone think?


 
Who says Ireland is becoming a more litigious state?


----------



## Monbretia (22 Sep 2014)

You mention an offset mortgage, was that through the old First Active?


----------



## Steven Barrett (22 Sep 2014)

You'd have a better chance of pursuing it under contract law than calling the cops. 

You'll have to compare the two t&c 's and see where the differences are.


----------



## cremeegg (23 Sep 2014)

Monbretia said:


> You mention an offset mortgage, was that through the old First Active?



Yes


----------



## cremeegg (23 Sep 2014)

I am not really contemplating calling the cops or going to court. 

I just asked for opinions as to whether the banks actions constituted a criminal offence. Does "administrative oversight" change the matter.

It seems to me that in making a complaint using the banks internal procedure, which I intend to do, the matter of the incorrect T & Cs would be fairly significant.

In my letter of complaint I might say, "you have issued the wrong T & Cs" do people think I would be justified or wise to add " as you have issued a false set of T&Cs which would place me at a disadvantage, this may amount to fraud" 

As I said any opinions or advice welcome.


----------



## cremeegg (23 Sep 2014)

SBarrett said:


> You'd have a better chance of pursuing it under contract law than calling the cops.
> 
> You'll have to compare the two t&c 's and see where the differences are.



The original T&Cs are for a "residential investment property", the set issued by the bank recently appear to be for a home mortgage.


----------



## Bronte (23 Sep 2014)

cremeegg said:


> The original T&Cs are for a "residential investment property", the set issued by the bank recently appear to be for a home mortgage.


 
I think you're going too far with this. They issued you the wrong document which does not apply to your mortgage/investment loan. They sent you the T&C for a standard mortgage instead of the T&C for your investment mortgage. You have spotted the error and that is all it appears to be, an error. 

Of more importance is whether the correct T&C entitle you to the lower interest rate that you want.  I think you should concentrate on that.


----------



## Monbretia (23 Sep 2014)

Are you positive the original T&Cs related to an investment mortgage?  If they did then they were more than likely the generic booklet issued for an ordinary BTL mortgage and not relating specifically  to  the offset type as offset were not issued for BTLs.  

More likely you got the wrong set day one, there was only one set of T&Cs for offset mortgages and they were just for home loans, the product was not set up to facilitate BTL mortgages, now I am sure some people managed to get one for this purpose but I would put money on the fact that it is set up as an ordinary home loan on the bank system as there was only one type of offset mortgage and not a second product type that related to BTL.   

At the end of the day I don't know what difference it is going to make to you, you are already on a very low tracker rate on an offset, insisting on an investment mortgage would surely see you move from that to a higher rate.   I would be inclined to stay quiet as there must be something wrong in the original application process if you managed to get an offset mtg from FA for a BTL.


----------



## Jim2007 (23 Sep 2014)

cremeegg said:


> In my letter of complaint I might say, "you have issued the wrong T & Cs" do people think I would be justified or wise to add " as you have issued a false set of T&Cs which would place me at a disadvantage, this may amount to fraud"



What exactly are you trying to achieve with this?  If it is to ensure that you will never again catch a break when dealing with them, then this absolutely the best way to do it.


----------



## Steven Barrett (23 Sep 2014)

cremeegg said:


> The original T&Cs are for a "residential investment property", the set issued by the bank recently appear to be for a home mortgage.



Besides the heading at the top of the T&C, what are the actual differences between the two sets of documents? 


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## cremeegg (23 Sep 2014)

This is an offset tracker mortgage which I have overpaid over the last number of years. 

Each month the bank sends me a statement showing the overpaid amount, it refers to this as "your available facility".

I now wish to drawdown some of this overpayment. As is provided for in the T&Cs, both sets.

Now the bank tells me that as xxx is no longer your main residence you cannot avail of the facility, and sends me a set of T&Cs which are based on a home loan.

The property was always an investment property, the original T&Cs are quite clear that it is a residential investment mortgage.

Just as an extra piece of information, I applied to draw down money in similar circumstances last year and met the same response. It took three months and a voluminous correspondence for them to see it my way. Eventually they gave me the money and substantial compensation for the delay.


----------



## Monbretia (23 Sep 2014)

You should be able to get the overpayment amount without difficulty.  

The 'available facility' is actually not exactly the same thing, this refers to the original amount borrowed and had the facility for the loan to be increased back up to close to that amount based on certain conditions.  The 'available facility' goes down over the years to allow for the fact that the loan is to be repaid within the initial term and usually once a year you get a letter telling you your new 'available facility'.


----------



## cremeegg (23 Sep 2014)

Monbretia said:


> You should be able to get the overpayment amount without difficulty.



That is what I thought, but I am having huge difficulty. And I don't think it is an administrative error.



Monbretia said:


> The 'available facility' is actually not exactly the same thing, this refers to the original amount borrowed and had the facility for the loan to be increased back up to close to that amount based on certain conditions.  The 'available facility' goes down over the years to allow for the fact that the loan is to be repaid within the initial term and usually once a year you get a letter telling you your new 'available facility'.



The statement refers to an 'account facility'. This the limit I can have borrowed from the mortgage account at a point in time. This as you say goes down over the years to allow for full repayment within the term. At present that figure is let us say €150,000.

The next line is the 'account balance', let us say €135,000. This is how much is owed on the mortgage at present.

The difference is referred to as the 'available facility' €15,000 being €150,000 minus €135,000. 

This 'available facility' arises partly due to actual monthly overpayments, and partly because interest charged is reduced by money on deposit in the associated current account.


----------



## Monbretia (23 Sep 2014)

The 'available facility' would exist even if you never overpaid or there was no interest savings in the offset current account.  This is where they are getting confused, they clearly can't identify how much is overpayment and how much is just the facility because you can definitely have the overpayment back with no conditions.

I personally don't think there is anyone from FA left in UB that actually really understands the offset product.   There was a poster on boards who was very well up on it and obviously a UB employee.


----------

