# KBC took my home loan tracker  when extending interest only period



## MOD (1 Apr 2013)

I got a mortgage out in 2006 on a tracker rate (0.95% above European base rate) for the full term of the mortgage.  I got interest only for the first 3 years at this rate. I requested and was granted a further period of interest only but was put on SVR by the bank. My understanding was that the SVR was for the extended period of interest only on the loan...not for the remaining full term of the loan which was 15 years....I was not advised to seek independent legal or financial advice and I was unable to sit down and discuss the issue with the bank. I could only speak to them on the phone which was totally inadequate....also some of the terms used were difficult to understand..i.e..."on an execution only basis" etc. The Ombudsman ruled in favour of the bank but I am taking it to court. I wonder if anybody else has a similar experience? Most of the tracker debates have been about reverting to tracker from fixed rates but nobody has mentioned return to tracker from interest only...I would welcome any views on the matter. Thank you in advance.


----------



## peteb (2 Apr 2013)

You could have been interest only on a tracker - it isn't a rate type per se.  But you accepted a standard variable rate to get it.  That is why there is no talk of "returning from tracker to interest only".


----------



## MOD (2 Apr 2013)

I  was on interest only on a tracker rate and had it extended....I'm not talking about "returning from tracker to interest only"...I'm saying the opposite...."returning from interest only to tracker"....Is it not the same as other people who have returned from fixed rates to tracker rates having been originally on tracker rates?  Replace "fixed rates" with "interest only" and do I have a case?


----------



## peteb (3 Apr 2013)

No you are missing the point.  Your "interest only" has to be calculated on the basis of an interest rate - so it could have been interest only based on the standard variable rate or interest only based on a fixed rate, or interest only based on a tracker rate.  You agreed to an SVR in this case as an alteration to your existing mortgage.  So you agreed to the changed terms.


----------



## MOD (3 Apr 2013)

I agreed to SVR for the duration of the "interest only" period,not for the full remaining term of the loan...at no time was I informed that it was for the full term of the loan in exchange for an extra year's "interest only" period


----------



## peteb (3 Apr 2013)

Have you the documentation you signed? Have you looked at it?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (10 Apr 2013)

MOD

I moved these posts from another thread, to which they were not related. 

You must have signed some form of agreement to extend the interest only period? 

Was that agreement not clear? 

Did you take independent advice on that agreement? 

Was this your home or an investment property? 

Who was the lender? 

Are you appealing the Ombudsman's decision to the High Court? You should think long and hard before you do so.  Even if you feel that the decision is unfair, you are very unlikely to reverse the Ombudsman's decision.


----------



## MOD (14 Apr 2013)

We did sign an agreement to extend the interest only period but it was unclear. We were never informed that the interest rate change was for the full remaining term of the loan. We understood that the interest change was for the extended "interest only" period of the loan. We did not take independent advice on that agreement. We were not advised by the bank (KBC) verbally or in writing, to seek independent legal or financial advice. The mortgage is on our family home. We are appealing the Ombudsman's decision to the High Court. Our solicitor feels that the Ombudsman didn't take all legal issues into account in making his decision.


----------



## murphaph (14 Apr 2013)

Just remember before ploughing serious money into a court case, that your solicitor is probably the only one who stands to lose nothing here.


----------



## MOD (15 Apr 2013)

I know it's a risk but it would be great if we got a group of people to share the financial burden to take this as a test case. I feel that we have a good case and if won,it would enable others to rightfully regain their tracker rates.


----------



## Bronte (16 Apr 2013)

MOD said:


> . We are appealing the Ombudsman's decision to the High Court.
> 
> Our solicitor feels that the Ombudsman didn't take all legal issues into account in making his decision.


 
My alarm bells are ringing here. How much is the quote for the High Court? This is serious money if you lose.

________________

Apart from that, based on what you've posted so far it looks to me like you requested the bank that they accomodate you in allowing you to go to interest only a second time and it appears that you signed to that effect and that in all probability you signed away your tracker (I'm taking that from the way you keep mention the phrase - independant legal advice).

I lost an ombudsman case myself that I wasn't happy about but no way would I risk ruining myself financial and mentally in taking a High Court case.

______________

Specific question for you, why did you think that the SVR only applied for the second period of IO?  What lead you to believe that.


----------



## PadKiss (20 Apr 2013)

Hi Mod just to update you i have one client that is interested in the grouping together of our forces re this issue will talk to you on the phone but to all others lets coordinate an approach to see if this issue can be addressed. Will be taking a good number of cases for customers of KBC in the next coup[le of weeks but with a completely different approach


----------



## Mauritius (16 Mar 2016)

Hello MOD. What was the outcome of this? Did you decide not to proceed to the High Court with your case?


----------



## Mauritius (14 Apr 2017)

Brendan, I think I emailed the Central Bank once in the last year or so but they told me they don't deal directly with the public.  I suppose they don't have the manpower to deal with 15,000 email threads on Tracker complaints alone!   
The banks seem to be extremely tight about releasing information as every decision has an implication for other similar cases.


----------

