# Broker amended my mortgage application so I did not apply for a tracker



## dokhtor (24 May 2017)

_moved from another thread - Brendan _

A similar thing happened to me also. I applied through a broker, broker said I was approved in principle for a tracker, then in July 2008 the broker said that the tracker was no longer available but that SVR was the same product as the tracker. The rate sheet he showed only included SVR and fixed. I did not realize the broker could lie, so I signed.

Few years ago I discovered the trackers were only pulled in October 2008 and complained to the bank. The bank said they had no record of me ever applying for a tracker. When I sent them the copy of the original application form for a tracker mortgage, the bank responded first, that trackers were indeed available to me but they did not have to offer them and that second, the broker amended the application and opted for SVR, dated the day before or same day he informed me that a tracker was not available. I asked but the broker refused to provide any information whatsoever.

I get it, no case for FSO. If I understand correctly, consumer protection code is just advisory. I signed, case closed, and contract tramps disclosure requirements under CPC. But I signed on the basis of a false information. What I have is the application for a tracker, a letter from the bank compliance dept that the broker amended the application, and the fact that the SVR rate was higher than a tracker rate at that time. But I cannot prove that it was not me who knowingly chose the inferior product that was also more expensive, I did not tape the lying broker. I have no clue why a supposedly independent broker acted in the interests of the bank.

It is an old thread, and I only saw it now, but Raging Bull is not the only one who was blatantly lied to. Pity we cannot do anything about it.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (24 May 2017)

Hi Dokhtor 

I don't think that the lender has any case to answer here. As far as they are concerned, you applied for an SVR and that is what they gave you. (But see below.) 

However, the broker has a case to answer if he amended your form without your approval. That is the equivalent of fraud. 

While there is a 6 year time limit on taking a case to the Financial Services Ombudsman, there is no time limit on fraud.

Have you taken it up with the broker? 

I suggest you get a copy of the application form which the bank has and that you send a copy of that and yours to the broker and ask them for an explanation. 

They might accuse the bank of editing the form. If that happened, you would have a good case.

There is no reason for the broker to amend your form. The bank would have a motivation to do so. 

Brendan


----------



## Sarenco (24 May 2017)

There is an inconsistency between this statement-


dokhtor said:


> The rate sheet he showed only included SVR and fixed. I did not realize the broker could lie, so I signed.


...and this statement -


dokhtor said:


> the broker amended the application and opted for SVR, dated the day before or same day he informed me that a tracker was not available.



Why would the broker amend the form?  That makes no sense.


----------



## todo (24 May 2017)

@dokhtor which bank do you have the mortgage with?


----------



## dokhtor (24 May 2017)

I have taken it up with the broker. They said since it is outside the 6 year limit, they do not keep any docs and cannot answer, and that I should have take it with FSO. The FSO in turn said that it is outside 6 year limit and they I should consider the legal route. I am not rich to afford legal expenses to be frank, particularly since at the end of the day it is my word against the broker. 

There is no inconsistency. The original mortgage application form indicated I applied for a tracker. I have that copy. It was I think in June 2008. The broker confirmed i was approved in principle for a tracker mortgage. I supplied the house related papers and in mid July the broker informed that the loan offer was ready but the tracker mortgage was no longer available to me. The rate sheet given only listed SVR and fixed. I signed the offer loan letter he gave. I was not even aware that any amended form existed, I was told the tracker mortgage was not available. Could he "amend" it by phone, simply asking the bank to send him a loan offer with SVR because the client was clueless? So that the application was effectively amended by me signing the svr loan offer? Just to be sure, I asked the broker to call them and confirm and he said they did. I only signed the loan offer with SVR that the broker gave. 

I obviously do not know if the broker amended the form, you are right as it does not make sense. I only posted that the broker amended the form because the bank compliance department told me in an official letter that stated "our records indicate that your original application was amended to SVR by a broker that date" or something like that and the date was either the day before the broker came a loan offer, or same day, cant remember. I do not really believe the bank because Sarenco you are right, it does not make any sense, and second because in their first response to my complaint they said they had no record of me ever requesting a tracker mortgage and they only explained it away by "amended form by a broker" when I showed them the original application for a tracker, when clearly there was a record. So I have two letters contradicting each other. imho, it can only be explained that the bank perhaps asked the broker to chance it and the broker obliged. And the esteemed forum members perhaps would not be surprised to know that the bank in question is BOI and its mortgage outlet then, ICS/BOI.


----------



## dokhtor (24 May 2017)

I cannot prove that it was not I who knowingly opted for a higher rate svr over a tracker that was also at a lower rate at the time because of some bizarre personal preference. My sense is that the broker could always argue I verbally instructed the broker to ask for an svr instead, hence the loan offer with svr. At the end of the day it would be my word against theirs, unless there is more evidence the practice was common in 2008. Or unless there is some kind of paper trail between the bank and the broker but it was probably all by phone. 

Brendan, thanks for replying and I agree, I don't think I can prove anything. But I know i was lied to, and consequences are serious, I was prevented from making an informed decision. I since then moved on, switched to another bank. I posted in case someone reads and decides to stay away from the BOI as I think they all should.


----------



## Sarenco (24 May 2017)

dokhtor said:


> There is no inconsistency.



Well on the one hand you say you applied for a tracker mortgage which was approved in principle but then you say that you signed a loan offer for an SVR.  That sounds inconsistent to me.

Ultimately of course it's what you signed that matters.


----------



## Monbretia (24 May 2017)

Are you 100% sure that bank was issuing new tracker loan offers in July 2008?     You only had approval in principle for the tracker mortgage initially, maybe by the time the full application was submitted in July the tracker was not an option for new loans.  I know where I worked new tracker applications were not accepted from sometime in July 08 but loan offers already in the pipeline were given until I think Oct/Nov to drawdown.

As previously said there is no good reason for a broker to change it otherwise, no advantage to them.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (25 May 2017)

Let's try to clarify what happened here 

1) You filled in an *application form *with a broker on which you clearly applied for a tracker mortgage. 
                   You have a copy of this application 
2) BoI has a copy of your *application form* with your signature, with tracker crossed out, and SVR ticked. 
3) You got a* loan offer/approval in principle *which had options for an SVR and fixed
4) You accepted this loan offer and you chose the SVR. 

The dates are very important here. 
If you applied for a tracker, but they were no longer being offered, it was not unreasonable for your broker to amend the application form so that it was for something which was on offer. 

If applications for trackers were still being accepted by BoI, it would make no sense for the broker to amend the application. 

We all know the value of trackers now, but back then people genuinely did not appreciate them. People accepted SVRs which were slightly below tracker rates which was madness.

The broker may have issued you with a "Reasons Why" letter why he was recommending this particular mortgage. I presume you didn't receive one, or if you did, you didn't keep it? (I am not sure if they were required to do so back in 2008) 

Brendan


----------



## dokhtor (25 May 2017)

Monbretia, this is what I thought first, that I was late. When I discovered about Oct 2008 pullout, I complained to the BOI. The BOI compliance department first lied I never applied for a tracker, then that the broker amended the original application when I showed the copy that I did. They have the same copy of my first application, I have not seen the copy of an "amended" application, or whether there was one. 

Second, the same compliance department confirmed that the tracker mortgage was available to me at that time, my LTV<80, the works, and that their records stated the broker amended to svr, ie that i applied for one myself. that svr rate was higher. They did not say that in July they only worked with the loan letters issued, only confirmed it was available still. Not sure how much to read into it.  Perhaps it is not true and in fact they did not issue loan offers even to those approved initially, and the letter is just a piece of garbage. 

Brendan, the sequence is correct. In June I was told that the approval in principle was for a tracker. If the broker said from the outset it was for svr almost certainly i would have looked elsewhere. In July the broker said that it was no longer available to me and that the bank offered svr instead which was the same thing. He did not say he was recommending to amend the application for svr, I cannot recall a reasons why letter. He explained that I had no choice in the matter. There are other things that look dodgy in retrospect. How could a finance professional argue that a tracker and svr are pretty much the same product? He also pushed for a much larger amount I had in mind w/o any explanation  as to the effect on the term and interest repayment. I was also clueless, they must have seen it. 

This whole thing is not right, very misleading. If I applied directly to the lender and told it was no longer available, I could have asked why, or to insist. I could have had a record. When I asked the broker why, he said he did not know. When I insisted, he said he called them and that it was not available. When I subsequently asked the lender, the lender said why did I ask for it then, they have no record I asked.


----------



## todo (25 May 2017)

@dokhtor I was pretty sure when I first read your post that this was Bank of Ireland, I'm not surprised at all that they did this to you.

Others will not agree that the bank instigated this, but I'm clear on that score.

My situation is similar to yours, except that no broker was involved.

Bank of Ireland were willing todo what ever it took to get a new customer on svr.

I'll add some of my dates here, may be of interest to you

1st of August 2008 Boi offered me a 2yr fixed mortgage rolling onto a tracker.

22nd of August 2008 Boi offer me a tracker mortgage for the complete length of the term.

11th September 2008 Boi have a policy change they are no longer selling trackers. (BOI confirmed this with me)

The only thing I can conclude is that BOI were willing to lure the customer in with the tracker and then come up with some method of switching them over to svr before they draw down.

BOI is not to be trusted, there is another poster on here that is lucky to have a recording of what they promised, its incredible what they will try to get away with.


----------



## Sarenco (25 May 2017)

Frankly, I wouldn't "trust" any financial institution - that's why we have contracts!

I'm still struggling to see what the problem is here. 

Regardless of what you may or may not have applied for - you were offered an SVR and that's what you signed up to.  Surely everything else is just "woulda, coulda, shoulda".


----------



## dokhtor (25 May 2017)

todo, thanks. Makes me feel better there are many others affected by this but I wish nobody was. So your case suggests that it is true, trackers were still on in Aug and Sep, at least until 11th, it is plainly untrue they were not available in July. Thanks for confirming. 

In fact, I looked up the letter from their compliance department and it states that "tracker was available as a product upon request from August 2001 to Oct 2008 when it was withdrawn." Also, in the same letter, "we have no record of you querying why a tracker rate was not offered to you before you accepted the mortgage loan offer". And when I forwarded the initial tracker application that they also had, they argued now that yes, you applied for a tracker but your broker amended it for svr in July. 

I understand now how important the contract and your signature are. But the broker clearly lied on behalf of the lender and I do not understand why. The only plausible explanation is that the broker worked for the bank not his customer. I now know that lenders manipulate and lie but I did not then, it did not even occur to me. 

It is great that the central bank reviews tracker contracts for contractual violations. But they will not get to the bottom of this unless they review all mortgages issued from 2002-8 for compliance with disclosure, affordability, product suitability requirements as in CPC 2006, let alone outright fraud. I looked up the CPC 2006 - it is all there, in plain English.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (25 May 2017)

Sarenco said:


> Regardless of what you may or may not have applied for - you were offered an SVR and that's what you signed up to. Surely everything else is just "woulda, coulda, shoulda".



That might well apply in contract discussions between large companies.

It should not apply in consumer contracts.  If a financial institution or professional advisor induces a borrower to sign an unfavourable contract, then it's right to look at what happened before the contract was signed. 

Brendan


----------



## dokhtor (25 May 2017)

Sarenco, I disagree. You encounter violations of trust like this too many times, eventually you have Trump and Brexit, too many people will stop trusting the institutions in general. On a systemic level. On a personal level, my car mechanic tells me he changed oil and filters in my car, you trust him, i have no way of knowing if he did, I cant tell. You return something to the department store, they pay back your money to your account, I trust it is there, it never occurred to me to check because it is always there. When the broker says that he called the lender and that they confirmed it was not available, you trust that broker unless you know otherwise. Did you really expect me to ask the broker to write a signed deposition that he contacted them and this is what he said and this is what they said? If a broker is impartial intermediary, he should have told me the lender was bargaining or something and that I should have asked the solicitor to write a letter. Instead, he lied. How could I possibly know?

I do not know much about contract law but surely a contract signed based on misleading information at the very least could be reviewed by institutions tasked with financial regulation. What is the point of CPC 2006 when the lenders do not follow it at all?


----------



## Sarenco (25 May 2017)

Brendan Burgess said:


> If a financial institution or professional advisor induces a borrower to sign an unfavourable contract, then it's right to look at what happened before the contract was signed.



That's a very big "if"!  It's only with the benefit of hindsight that you can say it was an "unfavourable" contract from the borrower's perspective.

Frankly, this story just doesn't add up. 

Why would the broker amend the form without the applicant's approval?  There was absolutely nothing in it for him.

The bank were apparently still offering trackers at the time so why would they have had any incentive to pressurise the broker to amend the application form? 

And at the end of the day, the OP was clear that he was signing up for an SVR - not a tracker.  If that wasn't what he thought he had applied for, why didn't raise a query at that point?

To be honest, I really don't buy the "I don't know what a tracker is" line.  The fact is that SVRs were often (marginally) cheaper then tracker rates back in 2008 and some borrowers took a risk that that would remain the case.  With the benefit of hindsight, that obviously turned out to be a bad bet.


----------



## todo (25 May 2017)

Sarenco said:


> Frankly, I wouldn't "trust" any financial institution - that's why we have contracts!
> 
> I'm still struggling to see what the problem is here.
> 
> Regardless of what you may or may not have applied for - you were offered an SVR and that's what you signed up to.  Surely everything else is just "woulda, coulda, shoulda".



Thats exactly the banks attitude, we set a trap for you, you fell into it, tough you fell for it. I once thought the cpc was there to protect against this, but it seems that is worthless waffle.

If we forget the method for a moment and just look at the input and the output of applying for a mortgage in the case of BOI.

Input --> The customer looks for a tracker, which the bank offers.
Output --> Customer ends up on SVR.

My argument is that BOI were willing todo whatever was necessary to get the customer on SVR before they drew down, particularly during the months of July, August and September 2008. The bank knew at that point trackers were bad business, but they still wanted new customers.

Take a look at complaint no 18 on page 51 at this link (2015 cold case r eview), https://www.dropbox.com/s/8ta5gvo2evkuof1/2015 Cold File Review.pdf?dl=0 

Here is another example of customer tricked by Bank of Ireland, look at the inputs and outputs, then look at who is to gain.


----------



## Sarenco (25 May 2017)

todo said:


> Input --> The customer looks for a tracker, which the bank offers.
> Output --> Customer ends up on SVR.



But the bank didn't offer a tracker!  It offered an SVR, which the applicant accepted.

Input 1. --> Customer looks for tracker.
Input 2. --> Bank offers an SVR.
Output ---> Customer and bank agree on SVR.

There's no "trap"!  It's simple offer and acceptance.

The only logical reason the broker would have amended the application was because:-

1. The bank indicated that it was no longer offering trackers, either generally or to borrowers in the position of the applicant, so it would be rejected; or
2.  His client requested him to do so.

Incidentally, the FSO found in favour of the bank in the complaint that you referenced and this was described as a well reasoned decision in the subsequent cold case review!


----------



## dokhtor (25 May 2017)

What exactly does not add up? first the bank approves in principle for a tracker mortgage whether to entice the customer or because of no issue with trackers in June. Then in July the bank tells the broker that they only offer an SVR. The broker tells the tracker was no longer available to me, the product was gone. Then he calls the bank to amend the application and the bank gives him the svr loan offer. Or he first amends the application for an SVR, gets the loan offer, then calls me to tell the tracker was not available. I do not know what was first. The broker who dealt with banks on a daily basis could not possible think that the trackers were not available in July. As Todo illustrated, BOI still had trackers in July and August. The BOI's own compliance department replied to me that the tracker was available to me and that they have no record i ever asked for it. When I showed the only record I had, then they replied, oh well, you are right, the broker amended it then.

A benign interpretation is that the broker simply passed along the lender's words that tracker was not available, without telling me that the lender was "bargaining", aka lying, and that trackers were in fact available. A less benign interpretation is that the broker acted on lender's instructions to amend the application.

Your interpretation, Sarenco, if I understood your point, is that I somehow instructed the broker to choose an SVR that was if I can recall now,  0.2 higher than boi's tracker rate then, which was 1.25 over 4.25 ecb at the time I think. Or that the broker thought it was a better deal. But even if the rate was the same, or marginally lower like you said, which it was not, should not the broker have provided the rate sheet with all the options instead of omitting the trackers as unavailable? Also, the fixed rates were higher than an SVR then, why did not the broker omit fixed dates like he did the tracker rate?

Please recall what people did in 2008. In the context of 2008, people did not choose svr over trackers, they chose fixed rates over trackers because the rate was going up. The bad bet was choosing fixed over tracker, not svr over tracker. Even someone financially clueless as I was would not choose a more expensive svr over a tracker rate if it was available. You also said "why didn't raise a query at that point?" - I did raise it with the broker - he told me called the bank and they confirmed it was not available. The time line is like this:

Input 1. --> Customer looks for tracker.
Input 2. --> Lender approves for a tracker, the broker says it is the best deal, a customer stays with the broker
Input 3. --> Broker informs the customer the tracker was no longer available
Input 34. --> Customer asks the broker to contact the bank and ask why, the broker confirms it is not available
Output ---> Customer signs on an SVR because the customer believes he has no other options.


----------



## dokhtor (25 May 2017)

My point is that the disclosure requirements under CPC 2006 were clearly violated. Sarenco's point is that only the contract matters, nothing else. I take it to mean that the clauses in CPC 2006 are purely advisory, not binding. Unfortunately, I think Sarenco is right, it is all about your contract. This is why I switched and I am trying to forget the BOI like a bad dream. 

But please do not take me for an idiot, I know I was lied to. The BOI's own letter confirms it. And you know what, if hypothetically the central bank reviewed all mortgages issued through the broker over the summer of 2008 and discovered, again hypothetically, that in the 100s of cases customers were "recommended" the BOI, all were approved in principle for a tracker but then all somehow ended up with an SVR, even if their contracts were in order, that would be abnormal still.  Hypothetically. I would love to know what this broker did to other customers, what is the big picture. But if even Fitzpatrick managed to walk away yesterday, they all walk away, I have no trust in the system.


----------



## Sarenco (25 May 2017)

dokhtor said:


> The time line is like this:
> 
> Input 1. --> Customer looks for tracker.
> Input 2. --> Lender approves for a tracker, the broker says it is the best deal, a customer stays with the broker
> ...



Ok.  Thank you for finally spelling out what happened.

Let's break this right down:-

1.  You understood the difference between a tracker and an SVR.
2.  You applied for a tracker and initially it was indicated that this would be available to you but you didn't enter into a loan agreement at this stage.
3.  It was subsequently indicated to you that the tracker option was no longer available.
4.  You asked your broker to double-check this with the bank.
5.  He indicated that he did so and confirmed to you that the tracker option was no longer available to you.
6.  You decided to enter into an SVR loan agreement and you drew down your loan on this basis.

All correct?

So what possible motivation would your broker have to lie to you?  What plausible reason would he have  to  misrepresent the true position?

None.

The obvious explanation is simply that the tracker option was simply no longer available to you.  Unless you can point to anything at all that would indicate that the broker misrepresented the factual position you would have to conclude that there was no such misrepresentation.

No lie, no trap and no conspiracy.


----------



## peemac (25 May 2017)

Unless banks were offering different commission rates for svr?

Unlikely and probably the bank had indicated that trackers were no longer being considered but would honour those they had agreed to in an official offer letter and this would explain the timeline.

One other point is that the interest rate on a tracker and a standard variable rate were very similar with difference of less than 0.5%, so it probably didn't seem terribly out of the ordinary for the broker to change to svr.


----------



## Sarenco (25 May 2017)

We are all entitled to withdraw or vary any offer up to the point that it is accepted by the person to whom the offer is made and a legally binding contract is concluded.


----------



## todo (25 May 2017)

Sarenco said:


> But the bank didn't offer a tracker!  It offered an SVR, which the applicant accepted.
> 
> Input 1. --> Customer looks for tracker.
> Input 2. --> Bank offers an SVR.
> ...



I know this all looks very simple to you, and your view is that what happens before the contract is signed doesn't matter and only the content's of the signed contract matters.

This is the banks view and FSO's view so your in good company there.

My point is this, Bank of Ireland had a strategic plan in place during the months of July, August and September of 2008. They knew at this point that trackers were bad news, but they still wanted new customers as I guess they were in the hope of the so called soft landing.

What they did was they trapped people by offering them tracker mortgages, they knew that it takes a lot of effort to get everything together to get an offer of a mortgage and if they got consumers far enough along the pipeline there likely to trust them and fall into the trap of going on svr.

My view is this, the tracker mortgage examination team should look at all inflight mortgage applications that went through Bank of Ireland during those months and see how many of them who were offered a tracker but ended up on svr and look at the circumstances of how they ended up on svr instead of the tracker rate.

I don't think that its no coincidence that the OP, the person in compliant no. 18, myself and the poster who has a recording of them that exposes them for the lies they are telling now, all know that Bank of Ireland set a trap and tricked us out of our tracker mortgages.

I used to get calls from Bank of Ireland asking me if there is anything they could help me with, I always said yes and tell them my story, each one of them told me that they will look into it and get back to me, but none of them ever have. They don't call me anymore and I don't know why, but that's the kind of bank they are.

I know that people in a similar situation to me and this OP, know that a trap was set for us and we fell into it, there isn't anything we can do about it as you so rightly point out, the contract is what it is.

Its a real shame that the CPC means nothing, its a shame that whistle blowers are treated so shamefully in this country as I'm sure there are many out there that could blow this whole thing wide open.

I'm waiting for the tracker review to complete, I've been told that I can appeal its decision, which I will do for what its worth.


----------



## Sarenco (26 May 2017)

todo said:


> your view is that what happens before the contract is signed doesn't matter and only the content's of the signed contract matters.


That doesn't accurately reflect my view as it happens but that's hardly important.

The point is simply that an offer was made to provide a loan on certain terms and those terms were freely accepted.  No duress, no misrepresentation and no misunderstanding.

Everything else is pure conjecture (to put it diplomatically) and, frankly, irrelevant.


----------



## dokhtor (26 May 2017)

Sarenco, I was being lied to, either by the broker or by the bank via the broker. You said, “The obvious explanation is simply that the tracker option was simply no longer available to you. Unless you can point to anything at all that would indicate that the broker misrepresented the factual position you would have to conclude that there was no such misrepresentation.”

I can point out to the letter from the BOI compliance department I quoted previously which confirmed that there was nothing in my LTV or LTI or whatever to prevent from the product, that it was available to me, and that it was available upon request until October 2008. Furthermore, another letter from the same BOI stated that they had no record of me (read – broker) ever asking about the tracker. Again, as I pointed out earlier, when I forwarded my initial application form to the BOI, then they contradicted their first answer that I never asked for it and then said that their records indicated that it was the broker who amended the application – on the day or the day before he told me the loan offer for SVR came through.

You asked me why I signed and did not query what happened to the tracker? I replied that I asked the broker to ask them and that the broker replied that it was not available. I have no proof he ever contacted them. If I dealt with the bank directly, I could have asked for details. The broker indicated that all communication with the lender was through him.

As for “1. You understood the difference between a tracker and an SVR.” I vaguely understood the difference. I only asked few colleagues and they suggested to go for a tracker. This is why I applied for it. When the broker presented the loan offer, he said there was little difference between svr and tracker and the real difference was with the fixed rates. Of course I was rather clueless, I do not dispute that. And in fact, I do not jump on the bandwagon of give-me-back-my-tracker, you are right that the contract was signed. But either the bank, or the broker, or both, lied to me. Ideally, I would love the central bank to review cases like this because it is not right to screw people for life.


----------



## dokhtor (26 May 2017)

Todo, in retrospect I think it is exactly right: “What they did was they trapped people by offering them tracker mortgages, they knew that it takes a lot of effort to get everything together to get an offer of a mortgage and if they got consumers far enough along the pipeline there likely to trust them and fall into the trap of going on svr.”

If the banks realized trackers were bad news, why did they pull them as late as only in October 2008 and continued offering them on request? Probably, because if one bank pulled them, the customers would have moved toward another bank that still offered them, maybe there was no cartel then yet as it is now.

So they kept the trackers on offer to lure the customers in, to induce into the process. And when the customers went through all the motions, collected the ton of paperwork, found and agreed on houses, at the last moment they would replace the tracker with svr contracts and see if the customers bite. And perhaps the brokers played along. 

Sarenco argues it is perfectly fine because it is bargaining – but it is only bargaining if you have some experience dealing with financial institutions and financially smart, realize it is bargaining, perhaps like Sarenco is. For people like I was in 2008 it was providing misleading info.

And I do not understand what “unavailable to you” means. Does it mean “unavailable as in the lender no longer offers the product” or that your circumstances, LTI or LTV make it unavailable? Does “unavailable” mean simply “not offered” as the lender first wants to offer an inferior product and in fact it is available? The broker explained it like it was no longer available at all. When I switched to another bank now, the banker explained all the rates, that this rate was available if the loan amount was above this amount, this rate was available if your LTV was like this, etc etc. All rates were available if my criteria fit their criteria, nothing was "unavailable" from their range.


----------



## Sarenco (26 May 2017)

dokhtor said:


> either the bank, or the broker, or both, lied to me



Cui bono?

People normally do not lie without some underlying motive.

The broker had no reason to lie - nothing in it for him - and apparently the bank would have been willing to offer you a tracker. 

The referenced documentation does not demonstrate that anybody lied to you.  If you don't want to accept the obvious explanation as to what happened, well that's up to you.


----------



## dokhtor (26 May 2017)

Sarenco, I do not know if you meant it, but your words are mildly insulting, about pure conjecture, diplomatically speaking. I based my point on the letter from the BOI compliance department. There is no duress certainly, but how is it no misunderstanding or misrepresentation? The lines of communication between the customer and the lender are obfuscated. The customer is able to neither choose between the range of products that are available to that customer or to question the lender about the products prior to signing the contract. I cant answer for the broker's rationale, I do not know. Your own conjecture that the simple explanation is that the product was not available is contradicted by the boi's compliance letter. But I obviously do not know and probably will never know. 

But what is the obvious explanation? If the bank was willing to offer me a tracker, then why did the broker passed along the svr loan offer?


----------



## Sarenco (26 May 2017)

dokhtor said:


> If the bank was willing to offer me a tracker, then why did the broker passed along the svr loan offer?



Ask yourself that question in reverse - if the bank was willing to offer you a tracker, why did the broker pretend otherwise?

You can't provide any plausible explanation for that and yet you have convinced yourself that your broker lied to you for no apparent reason.

The obvious explanation is that the bank wasn't in fact willing to advance a tracker loan to you.


----------



## elcato (26 May 2017)

I really think you are looking waay too deep into this in the hope of getting a result. The bank realised in 2008 during your application process that trackers were bad deals so they refused you a tracker. Nothing untoward in that. You were told the tracker was no longer available. They offered you a SVR loan. You questioned why not a tracker and they informed you that they were no longer available. You then signed for the SVR. You had the right to walk away or ask another lender.


----------



## dokhtor (26 May 2017)

But then we both agree, it is the most obvious explanation. Then the letters from the BOI about availability to me are meaningless ex post explanations. Where the boi stated I only did not get the tracker because I did not apply for it, which i did. Sarenco, is your point that the trackers were perhaps indeed available to me based on their underlying criteria but the bank was unwilling to offer a tracker? 

But I still do not understand what it means. "Unwilling" does not mean "unavailable". "unwilling" is still about obfuscation and misrepresentation, and it is perfectly compatible with the point that todo made, about luring clueless people in, then changing the terms midway. And are you telling me the broker could not know their play and could not recommend asking my solicitor to write a letter to the lender for the reasons of making the tracker unavailable? Hardly. 

When I was switching from the boi recently,  I obviously did not go to brokers and talked to the ulster and the aib. all products were available provided I fulfilled their criteria that they explained to me, they were not "unwilling". If the customer fulfills the criteria what does unwilling even means? Look up the clauses on recommending the most suitable product or the product that the customer asked for in the CPC 2006. 

elcato, I do not hope of getting any result. I walked away from the boi. I am not into tracker review or anything. All this time I could not understand the behavior of either the broker or the bank, I was hoping other posters could illuminate a bit.


----------



## todo (26 May 2017)

I guess there are two questions to be answered.

1. Are Bank of Ireland in breach of the CPC?
2. Should the CPC be enforced?


----------



## Sarenco (26 May 2017)

dokhtor said:


> Sarenco, is your point that the trackers were perhaps indeed available to me based on their underlying criteria but the bank was unwilling to offer a tracker?


Yes.


dokhtor said:


> "unwilling" is still about obfuscation and misrepresentation


No it isn't. 

- Are you willing to offer me X?
- No.  But I will offer you Y.
- That's a pity, I was hoping for X.
- Sorry, we can only offer you Y.
- I'll take Y so.

Where is the misrepresentation or obfuscation?


dokhtor said:


> the point that todo made, about luring clueless people in, then changing the terms midway.


The Bank didn't change their terms midway.  They withdrew a previous offer before it was accepted and made an alternative offer.  Perfectly legitimate.


----------



## Sarenco (26 May 2017)

todo said:


> 1. Are Bank of Ireland in breach of the CPC?


I can't see any breach of the Code on the facts of this case.


todo said:


> 2. Should the CPC be enforced?


Of course.


----------



## dokhtor (26 May 2017)

The obfuscation is in the inability of a customer to ask the lender the "why" question. As in, if I borrow a lower amount to reduce my LTV ratio, or if I borrow a higher amount to fulfill your criteria (like in the Ulster bank >250K criteria), will I get the product? Is the product withdrawn or you do not offer to me only? What do I need to do to get the product? The broker communicated it was unavailable, no negotiation. The letter from the BOI implied it was negotiable. Besides, how could the lender know they could push an inferior product and it was likely i would not walk away, losing the customer altogether? one plausible possibility was that the broker shared information on my personal circumstances with the banker, preference to do things quickly, before autumn. 

Again, when I was switching, I was surprised by the amount of information received from the banks, how they explained it all. Why could not I get the same service in 2008 as I got in 2015? In 2008 it was just, this is the amount, you have to take as much as you can, this is unavailable, I do not know why.


----------



## todo (26 May 2017)

Sarenco said:


> I can't see any breach of the Code on the facts of this case.



Principle 2

"acts with due skill, care and diligence in the best interests of its customers;"

Getting the customer on SVR is in Bank of Irelands best interest, not the customers, they were still selling trackers after the op signed up for an SVR.

Clear breach of the CPC, at no point in time is a rate were the the bank has complete control of the interest rate in the customers best interest, and certainly not when they have a product they were actively selling to other customers which was a tracker.


----------



## dokhtor (26 May 2017)

Sarenco, according to the 2006 Consumer Protection Code, specifically 30 (b) and (c): b) where the regulated entity offers a selection of product options to the consumer, the product options contained in the selection represent the most suitable from the range available to the regulated entity; … c) where it recommends a product to a consumer, the recommended product is the most suitable product for that consumer. Furthermore,  (31) mandates a bank is required to provide a written statement why “a product or service offered to a consumer is considered to be suitable to that consumer; b) the reasons why each of a selection of product options offered to a consumer are considered to be suitable to that consumer; or c) the reasons why a recommended product is considered to be the most suitable product for that consumer. The regulated entity must give a copy of this written statement to the Consumer and retain a copy.” 

First, the range of options that included SVR and fixed rates for different terms only, i.e., "the product options contained in the selection" did not "represent the most suitable from the range available to the regulated entity" because the range omitted the available tracker product. As we established, "the range available" include tracker products at the time, to October 2008, certainly in July 2008. The range of options included more expensive products. I was not given any statement how an SVR was superior. Sarenco said trackers were available but the bank was unwilling. What "unwilling" means in the context of clause 30? 

If in its mortgage loan offer letter the bank omits, as in "unwilling", one of its products that are in fact available and applicable to a particular consumer despite that said consumer indicating the preference for that very product in its own mortgage application form, and that consumer is prejudiced in his decision because he would have chosen otherwise, how is it not contrary to Clause 30?

I am not naive, even if it is probably contrary to clause 30,  so is the omission of tracker options on rate sheets of people on lifetime trackers who came down from their fixed periods is equally contrary to clause 30, which means CPC is not enforceable overall.


----------



## Sarenco (26 May 2017)

todo said:


> Clear breach of the CPC, at no point in time is a rate were the the bank has complete control of the interest rate in the customers best interest, and certainly not when they have a product they were actively selling to other customers which was a tracker.



By that logic all lenders are currently in breach of the CPC by selling non-tracker variable rate home loans!  That is very clearly not the case.


----------



## Sarenco (26 May 2017)

dokhtor said:


> the range omitted the available tracker product


But you were advised that the tracker was not available to you!

Are you now arguing that because trackers were (possibly) made available to some customers but not others that there was a breach of the CPC?  In that case, offering an LTV based loan product would breach the CPC.  That very clearly is not the case.


----------



## dokhtor (26 May 2017)

Sarenco, I do not understand.  First you argue it happened because it was not available to the customer, then you said it was because the bank was unwilling. I was advised that the product was unavailable, gone. But the product was available to me, it was made unavailable to me however because the bank was unwilling to offer it. If you fulfill specific criteria and the product is available, how can it be made unavailable?

Of course the products available will vary depending on LTV or other criteria specific to the customer. The BOI explained to me that the tracker was available to me based on my circumstances and their criteria. You plausibly explained their behavior by unwillingness. The CPC states that "options contained in the selection represent the most suitable from the range available to the regulated entity." Trackers were available in July to the BOI yet, I fulfilled their criteria thereby rendering the tracker available to me. Why was not the tracker included in the range of options? Why was there no explanation whatsoever about suitability?

How else do you explain "options contained in the selection represent the most suitable from the range available to the regulated entity"? Please interpret this clause how you think it should be interpreted. What does "most suitable from the range available" mean?


----------



## Sarenco (26 May 2017)

Let me try and be as clear as I possibly can.

You initially said that your broker lied to you and that a tracker would have been made available to you if your broker hadn't amended the application form without your authority.

You have not produced a shred of evidence to back up your claim that your broker lied to you.  There would have been no reason for your broker to lie to you.  There was nothing in it for him.  Ergo the only plausible explanation is that (a) your broker did not in fact lie to you; and (b) that the tracker option was not in fact available to you.

You have now moved on to argue that the bank breached the CPC by not offering you a tracker.  That seems wholly fanciful to me but you are obviously free to advise the Central Bank of your concerns.


----------



## dokhtor (26 May 2017)

Sarenco, I said the broker lied to me based on the official letter from the BOI's compliance that the tracker was available to me at the time and that their records indicated that the broker amended the application. I said "lied" because the broker told me that the bank passed along the svr loan offer, that the tracker was not available and that he asked the bank about the tracker again. While the bank informed me that they had no information that the broker ever asked about it. Like I said, there are few other things I discovered what the broker did on the application form that were somewhat dodgy, making me suspicious but lets assume the broker did not lie and dutifully communicated the info from the boi.

My evidence is the first application form for a tracker, and two letters from the BOI that point out to the broker. If you are right and the broker had no motivation to do so, which is entirely plausible, then it means that I am wrong and it was the bank that lied. The bank was unwilling to offer the tracker and passed along the svr loan offer, and the broker in fact queried them and they replied it was not available. And the letter from the compliance department is rubbish.  It is very convenient when the lender refers to the broker and the broker refers to the lender. How is not an obfuscation when the customer cannot communicate with the lender about criteria? But, fine.

I have not moved to argue about the CPC. Other posters mentioned CPC first and I wondered what do its relevant clauses mean exactly? I asked other informed members such as yourself about the wording in specific clauses in the CPC. I did it politely because I value your opinion. Instead, you turned to employing "fanciful" and the like and went all patronising on me. Lets be civil.


----------



## dokhtor (26 May 2017)

In general terms. What does "availability to a customer" in banking even mean? Seriously. Are there set of objective criteria or "availability" is an arbitrary decision on a whim? If the lender's web page states that a tracker mortgage at such a rate is available to those borrowing above 300K with LTV<80, provided ones credit checks out, should the lender make this product available to those who fit these criteria? And if not, why not? I cannot understand Sarenco's point of available but unwilling. 

Trackers are dead now. If the bank has products at different LTV rates and my LTV<50, and I apply through the broker, is it ok if the broker produces the loan offer with higher rates at LTV<90 only included? And then he says that rates at LTV<50 are not available to me. How could it be OK not to include rates applicable at LTV<50 among "most suitable from the range available" so that it is not a violation of clauses 30-1? If it is a violation, how is it different from omitting that tracker product?

To argue that anything goes before the contract is signed is also pretty fanciful, and lenders' knowledge that the regulators do not enforce the CPC is probably what brought us into such mess in the runup to 2008. If you have knowledge how the CPC is interpreted I would really like to know. There is obviously little point to advise the central bank - again i detect the note of sarcasm - because it does not seem to be interested in consumers at all, only in financial stability.


----------



## todo (26 May 2017)

Sarenco said:


> By that logic all lenders are currently in breach of the CPC by selling non-tracker variable rate home loans!  That is very clearly not the case.



If a customer requests a particular type of mortgage but ends up on a different type, which is worse off for the customer, this is not what I call acting in the customers best interest.


----------



## Sarenco (26 May 2017)

todo said:


> If a customer requests a particular type of mortgage but ends up on a different type, which is worse off for the customer, this is not what I call acting in the customers best interest.



You do understand that there is no obligation on anybody to actually accept a loan offer? 

If you don't like the loan terms on offer, you are free to either (a) walk across the street to see if another lender will offer you better terms; or (b) not take out a loan at all.


----------



## Sarenco (26 May 2017)

dokhtor said:


> To argue that anything goes before the contract is signed is also pretty fanciful


Indeed but I didn't make that argument.

Look, at this stage we are just talking in circles.

I have already explained why (a) I don't see any evidence that your broker lied to you; and (b) I don't see any breach by the bank of the CPC from what you have told us.

Ultimately, of course, it doesn't matter what I think.

If you want to continue torturing language or inferring facts to justify your position, well, that's up to you.


----------



## Danny Boy (26 May 2017)

I've only just read this thread which has taken quiet some time.

I didnt think that BOI dealt directly with brokers - was the mortgage done through ICS which was their broker wing? Maybe the broker was using a local branch to place the business?

In relation to the tracker rate, its fair to say that in 2008 the tracker rates being offered by lenders was a lot more that .5 of a percent over ECB so I wonder what was the rate over ECB they were offering at the time? 
I know that in 2005 - 2006 they were offering .5% over ECB depending on the loan to value rate but the ECB rate was 3% at the time. Obviously that all changed when the ECB started to drop. So my point is that the OP might not be as hard done by as he thinks as the tracker rate offered at the time may have been 3% plus over ECB.  

I hope that makes sense & maybe breaks the fall a small bit for the OP - he would still have been better off but maybe not by as much as he thinks?


----------



## todo (26 May 2017)

Sarenco said:


> You do understand that there is no obligation on anybody to actually accept a loan offer?
> 
> If you don't like the loan terms on offer, you are free to either (a) walk across the street to see if another lender will offer you better terms; or (b) not take out a loan at all.



Do you understand that the bank is obligated under the cpc to do what's in the best interest of the customer.

We trusted them too much.


----------



## Sarenco (26 May 2017)

The CPC provides that as a general principle a regulated service provider is required to act honestly, fairly and professionally in the best interests of its customers and the integrity of the market. 

At the end of the day, only the Central Bank can decide how to apply that general principle in the context of any individual case but I would point out that the requirement is to act in the best interests of its "customers" - plural. 

I never understood why anybody would "trust" a bank.  They are not fiduciaries - they make loans for profit.


----------



## dokhtor (26 May 2017)

I am not looking for a tracker review or anything of sorts, my query was about lending practices and disclosure requirements. You did not clarify to me or other forum members what is the difference between “unavailable” and “unwilling.” You make it sound like a game, instead of prudent lending with putting ticks next to the set of criteria for specific mortgage products that I thought the lenders were supposed to do. If you fulfill the criteria, then they tick the boxes and the product is available, if you do not, then it is unavailable. I have still have no clue what “available” but “unwilling” means.

In summary, I got a cold call from the broker who told about a very competitive product they could give. Then I was approved in principle for a tracker. I asked my colleagues and they all suggested the trackers were better. If the broker did not give me the tracker, I would have walked across the street like you said. I thought i was approved. Then the whole thing, the papers, looking for a house, more papers, I was exhausted, took quite long. Then the broker informed that the tracker was no longer available and that the loan offer was for a similar product, svr. That they were similar, and different from fixed. I asked to contact the BOI for a tracker again, and the broker said he did and not available. At that stage it was difficult to walk away because another lender's offer has expired or was about to get expired, and the broker made it sound like trackers were no longer available across the board. It appears to me that all it required is for the broker to advise to ask my solicitor to write a letter to the lender and query what happened. At least, this is how I read the boi's letter from the compliance department.

But at the end of the day, in June I went in with savings thinking I was getting one type of product, and in September I was without any savings, with the most expensive mortgage in the country. I am not an idiot, and even I could not understand how you were supposed to ask the lender for an explanation if the broker does not tell you anything specific. 

Danny Boy, the BOI rate at the time was 1.25% over ecb, with discount of i think 0.15 below that in first year or two. The svr offered was 0.2 over the rate that I would have got from the tracker. So, it was not the most beneficial product in the sense of CPC, it was garbage. 

We indeed argue in circles so I am happy to close it.


----------



## dokhtor (26 May 2017)

I am still curious whether it would be a violation of CPC if hypothetically the lender does not include the rates applicable at LTV<50 when such rates are in fact available, and does not tell about them.As in 30 b) where it offers a selection of product options to the consumer, the product options contained in the selection represent the most suitable from the range available to the regulated entity. 

If the rates are available and applicable to a particular customer in particular circumstances, why would the lender be unwilling to offer them?


----------



## Sarenco (26 May 2017)

Maybe because certain terms were not actually available and applicable to a particular customer in particular circumstances (or at all) and therefore the lender was unwilling to offer them?

Does that help you out of your self-created, linguistic rabbit hole?


----------



## dokhtor (26 May 2017)

Sarenco, instead of addressing the substance of the question head on you tend to come up with the least applicable example to ridicule the question asked. Like suggesting that all lenders may be in breach because they offer arbitrary rates. So I suggested a very specific example: would the lender be in breach of the "the selection represent the most suitable from the range available to the regulated entity" clause if they omitted the relevant and applicable LTV rate from the range of offered options even though the customer falls into that LTV bracket. When I read the clause, I understand that such a lender would obviously be. I could be wrong but you did not explain how. 

If you do not know the answer, this is perfectly fine, just say so. You did not explain why it is not a breach, because by your logic the range can contain anything or nothing at all, because your point that "certain terms were not actually available and applicable to a particular customer in particular circumstances (or at all)" is legalistic mouthful that does not mean anything specific, a solicitor who does not know the answer could answer exactly like that to obfuscate. The relevant terms are LTV and LTI. I cant see what else is there since the lender is willing to lend a shitload of money anyhow, so the credit history and employment details must have checked out. And if something has not checked out, why offer the mortgage in the first place.


----------



## dokhtor (26 May 2017)

Apart from an obvious vested interest to force the customer to borrow as much money as possible because the broker's commission depends on the total amount, not whether a suitable customer is matched with the lender, I highlighted an obvious disclosure and information problem when applying through the broker. Not everybody is as financially smart, or lucky, as you are. 

Short of walking away from the loan offer and losing all the money spent on a solicitor, appraiser, surveyor, which with the benefit of a hindsight of course I should have, I am not sure how else I could have had the tracker product I was approved for in June in the first place. And it seems to me the boi was perfectly insulated from the questions I could have asked as a customer directly. if you do not see it, then you choose to see things that conform to your view of the world. Have a good day now.


----------



## peemac (27 May 2017)

dokhtor said:


> Danny Boy, the BOI rate at the time was 1.25% over ecb, with discount of i think 0.15 below that in first year or two. The svr offered was 0.2 over the rate that I would have got from the tracker. So, it was not the most beneficial product in the sense of CPC, it was garbage.
> 
> We indeed argue in circles so I am happy to close it.



That probably explains why it was not a huge issue.

Ecb rate July 2008 was 4.25%

Your tracker would have been 5.5%
Svr was 5.7% based on what you say.

For the 3-4 years previously,  svr and trackers @ 1.25% were not hugely divergent. That only happened when the banks realised they could fleece svr customers as there was little or no chance of switching. 

Therefore at the moment in time the broker (or even probably yourself)  would not have seen any great issue of being on svr v tracker. On a 350k mortgage the difference is about €40 a month. 

History would show that it would be plausible that the difference would never be substantial,  so broker probably didn't fight too hard for the tracker and as you did not fight too much either,  the mortgage proceeded as a svr.

So I can't see where there's any case against the broker as no-one could forsee that the banks would target svr mortgages in the way they have unashamedly done.

Hard to swallow,  but probably not much that can be done.


----------



## Sarenco (27 May 2017)

Dokhtor

Only the Central Bank can determine whether or not there has been a breach of their Code - they don't publish case law.  I don't think there has been a breach of the Code but ultimately it doesn't matter what I think.  Only the Central Bank can take any action with respect to this matter so if you think you have a legitimate complaint your only course is to make it to the Central Bank.

Nobody forced you to borrow as suggested and there was no reason why you couldn't have contacted the bank directly if you wanted to or you could have walked across the road to another lender.
You keep insisting that a tracker was available to you but for some mysterious reason this wasn't offered to you because your broker lied to you for zero gain.  That flies in the face of logic.

It strikes me that you want to "blame" somebody else for your decision but you don"t propose to do anything about it.  That's pointless.


----------



## todo (27 May 2017)

peemac said:


> That probably explains why it was not a huge issue.
> 
> Ecb rate July 2008 was 4.25%
> 
> ...




There is a huge imbalance of power, Bank of Ireland knew at this point that trackers were bad business, you can be certain they done all they could to convert any in flight mortgage applications to svr.

The facts remain the same,

The customer went into the situation looking for a tracker mortgage, got offered a tracker mortgage, but then ended up coming out with an svr mortgage, to the massive benefit of Bank of Ireland.

This was certainly not in the customers best interest, it was in Bank of Ireland's best interest.

I for one smell a rat, it just irks me to know that they will almost certainly get away with this.


----------



## dokhtor (28 May 2017)

I am not making up. I said the tracker was available to me because in June I was approved for a tracker. We established that the BOI still provided trackers over the summer incl July. Ergo, the trackers were available from the BOI still. Nothing has changed in my circumstances between June when I approved for the tracker, and July, when the broker changed the application. It means that the tracker was indeed available to me and I was misled to think that it was not. The BOI compliance dept has confirmed that. I do not see what it illogical in my summary.

If you think the tracker was not available all along and that the approval in June was not in good faith, then it means that the BOI deceptively lured customers with better products so that they would not walk away, only to amend the terms at the last moment, I find it deceitful. If I was genuinely approved for a tracker in June and it was still available in July, then offering another product I did not apply for at the last moment when all was set is deceitful. I should have walked away, I completely agree. I did not contact the lender directly because I did not know you could when all is done via the broker. There are also opportunity costs when I stayed with the BOI tracker offer from June. I just find the argument that the lender can do anything before the contract is signed too wild west.

At the very least, the broker could have explained the bargaining situation, or recommended that it was an inferior product. If Sarenco does not buy “I do not know what the tracker is” argument from customers, surely such an argument is completely implausible in case of brokers? If my referral to the broker’s behavior as “lies” robs you the wrong way, then at the very least such behavior was unprofessional and not in the best interests of a customer. It is also not a “lie” only if the BOI compliance letter that blamed the broker is rubbish. No matter, whether it was only the BOI, or BOI and the broker both, it did not feel right. Especially in light of my recent experience with switching, now I know how the lender is supposed to deal with customers and what information can be provided. If it was in reverse and I had know what to expect in 2008, of course I would have walked away. If I cant do anything about it, then perhaps some forum members who read it will learn few things about the boi or brokers and perhaps decide to stay away.


----------



## dokhtor (28 May 2017)

Sarenco, I did not propose to do anything because I did not know if anything could be done. But like todo said, I smell a rat here, it did not feel right then or now. I asked the forum members for their opinion. Sarenco you know a lot about the industry and you believe that it is unlikely anything can be done. I thought that the clauses in article 30 of the CPC 2006, if you read in plain English, sanction such an arbitrary omission of relevant products. I value your opinion even if I wanted to hear different. Other forum members are sympathetic but they do not suggest anything specific.  If the FSO is not interested, and the Central Bank does not review cases like this, then what is the point of complaining to the central bank? Besides, will not the Central Bank merely refer to the FSO?  I personally think that a lone case like this will be difficult and I do not have the resources. right?

However, I bet if the central bank reviewed all mortgages issued through the broker, like a review of cases in plural, I would be surprised if they did not discover an unusually high number of unaffordable too high mortgages and perhaps a manipulation of clients. If an individual cannot request the regulator for a such review of a financial intermediary I do not know what else. If you have any thoughts, I appreciate them. If not, thank you for your comments.


----------



## Bronte (29 May 2017)

Sarenco said:


> That's a very big "if"!  It's only with the benefit of hindsight that you can say it was an "unfavourable" contract from the borrower's perspective.
> Frankly, this story just doesn't add up.
> Why would the broker amend the form without the applicant's approval?  There was absolutely nothing in it for him.
> To be honest, I really don't buy the "I don't know what a tracker is" line.  .



I'm one of those that didn't realise what a tracker was as I was getting a mortgage in that time period.  I was just used to fixed and variable so I stuck with what I knew.

I agree with you the story doesn't add up.  Why would you many years later suspect the broker of skullduggery.  There is no reason for the broker to amend the form unless the tracker was no longer available.  The OP knew he was being offered only a variable or a fixed rate and was happy to take it.


----------



## Monbretia (29 May 2017)

Quite a lot of people stuck with what they knew.   I remember well trying to explain to people what a tracker was but for many they actually preferred to stay with the traditional type mortgages, devil you know and all that!   Now hindsight has proved choices to be wrong but many fixed rates were the wrong choice too at different times.


----------



## dokhtor (29 May 2017)

Bronte, what exactly does not add up? My argument is not about me, whether I knew any difference between the trackers and svr, I obviously did not know much, my argument is about disclosure requirements. I do not understand what the lender is required to disclose, what the broker is required to disclose.

With a risk of repeating the same point, it only came to my attention in 2015 because this is when I found out that the BOI still offered trackers in July and pulled them in October. In July 2008 the broker told that the trackers were not available. Now I know this not to be true. The trackers were available to me as I applied for a tracker and was approved for a tracker, in June. Recently I asked the boi compliance department and they confirmed that the tracker product was available to me to October and that it was the broker who amended the application from tracker and svr. This is what an official letter stated. These are my facts.

Another forum member, Sarenco, also argued that the broker did not have any interest in pushing svr instead of the tracker. I think he is probably right.

I think the boi manipulated by first approving customers for trackers so they would not go to another bank and then by offering an svr instead when everything was to be signed. This is perfectly consistent with their overall strategy then to end the product. They obviously have the right to end the product, I have no problem with that but the lender should not have approved me for a tracker in the first place. In June I was approved for a tracker, and when i submitted the remaining docs, at the last moment the boi told the broker to offer an svr. The broker explained to me that it was not available, that svr and trackers were similar products. I asked the broker to request the tracker again and he confirmed it was not available. In 2015 the boi compliance department replied  that they had no record of me requesting why it was not given. Contrary to what the broker told me. This is why, on the basis of an official letter from the boi, I concluded that the broker lied. If you prefer to think of brokers in more benevolent terms, then lets say the broker did not lie. Instead, he did not tell the truth.

The story is very simple. The boi wanted clients but would have preferred clients with an svr. At the very least, the broker had to explain that the lender was bargaining, that the trackers were still available on the market, and that svr were inferior to trackers. I do not try to exonerate myself, I accept I was an idiot. An idiot relying on the broker. But please do not insult my intelligence by saying that the broker did not know the difference between trackers and svr, or that the trackers were no longer available.

I do not want to get anything from the lender. I switched from the boi. I only wanted to know how it is not a violation of CPC 2006, article 30, when a lender omits a product from the range offered when such product is available to a customer, available to a lender, a customer applied for it and was already approved for it. And how exactly a customer is expected to ask the lender for details if the broker confirms they asked the lender and the lender confirms the broker never asked the lender?

This is what does not add up to me. If others know about disclosure requirements, I would appreciate your thoughts.


----------

