# Central Bank review of trackers for other banks



## Gerard123 (4 Oct 2015)

Does anyone know how this review will work?  Will there be an opportunity for consumers to input to it or is simply between the Central Bank and the various Institutions?  

Also how will the Central Bank view decisions of the Ombudsman in cases where the decisions do not appear logical.  Will the Central Bank ignore any decisions and look at the situation afresh? 

Thanks.


----------



## Rebuttal (4 Oct 2015)

I believe the C.B.I. are currently conducting a full review of all banks operating in Ireland during the boom/bust period, from a consumer protection perspective, this would of course include a review of all tracker mortgages. The C.B.I. are trying to establish whether there were systematic breaches of the Consumer Credit Act 1995, Consumer Protection Act 2007, CCMA, EC ( licensing and supervision of credit institutions ) regulations 1992 etc.


----------



## Gerard123 (5 Oct 2015)

Thanks for the info. 

Has anyone any insight, perhaps as a result of the PTSB tracker situation?  Did PTSB customers interact with the Central Bank, etc?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (7 Oct 2015)

Statement from the Central Bank 

*Statement on examination of tracker mortgage-related issues  *
*2 October 2015*
The Central Bank has embarked on a broader examination of tracker mortgage-related issues covering, among other things, transparency of communications with and contractual rights of tracker mortgage borrowers.

The fair treatment of tracker mortgage borrowers has been a key supervisory and policy focus for the Central Bank over the past number of years.  Our consumer protection framework requires all lenders to act in their consumers’ best interests and, in particular, requires lenders to disclose material information to consumers to enable them to make informed decisions.  For those borrowers who are in mortgage arrears, the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears restricts lenders from requiring a borrower to change to another mortgage rate type, other than in instances where no other option is appropriate or sustainable.

In line with our risk-based approach to supervision, our engagement with lenders has been intrusive in relation to lenders’ treatment of tracker mortgage borrowers.  Since 2010, we have identified and pursued a number of lender-specific issues in relation to transparency for borrowers who opted to switch from their tracker rates or who had the right to revert to a tracker rate at the end of a fixed rate period.  This has resulted in the use of supervisory powers, including the Administrative Sanctions Procedure, redress and compensation schemes for those borrowers who suffered detriment or loss as a result of their lenders’ practices. 

Notwithstanding the considerable work undertaken to ensure consumers are appropriately protected, we remain concerned that there may be other tracker-related issues which could be impacting on consumers across the system.  In this regard, we are currently engaging closely with a number of lenders on points of concern relating to their ability to demonstrate that they have acted in the best interests of their tracker mortgage customers, with a number of lenders currently undertaking their own internal reviews.  We have also been engaging with consumer groups as well as the Financial Services Ombudsman to help inform our work.  In addition, we have decided that a broader examination of tracker-related issues is warranted. We havebeen developing an appropriate methodology for such an examination in order to ensure that all issues will have been addressed by such a review  We have written to all lenders notifying them of our intention to conduct such a review.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (7 Oct 2015)

I met with the Central Bank yesterday:


1)They wanted to know of any systemic issues which they should look into. They wanted to make sure that they had a complete list before they started their review. They couldn't tell me which ones they already had, but asked me to list them.
2) I told them that Padraic Kissane  would have a complete list. I doubt if there are any which he does not know about. But I said I would reflect on it anyway. (It turns out that Padraic is meeting them today.)
3) In particular they wanted to know if any issues had arisen since they brought in new disclosure requirements in 2012. I told them that by 2012, the fixed rates and SVRs were way above the trackers, so few if any borrowers were encouraged off trackers.
4) I suggested that they ask the lenders to review all cases where the Ombudsman had rejected the complaint. And to see if their new guidelines would now include that complaint. 
5) I suggested that they tell the lenders to review all complaints rejected as out of time by the Ombudsman.
6) I suggested that there was a significant problem with inconsistency.  In identical cases, the banks restored trackers for some borrowers and refused them for others. Likewise with the FSO, they seemed to reject some complaints which were identical to others which appeared similar. 
7) I suggested that they review all complaints made on the issue, even where the borrower had not pursued it any further. Many complainants just give up as the process is so difficult.
8) They said that the 6 year rule did not apply to them. They were going back to 2006 when the Consumer Protection Code came into effect.
9) I was concerned that some RIP investors whose interest only period expired, were offered an extension of the interest only period if they gave up their trackers.  While I don't think that an investor should be allowed to extend a tracker on interest only forever, I felt a fairer compromise would be to increase the margin by 1%.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (7 Oct 2015)

The Central Bank seems serious about this review. 

If you lost your tracker and you think it was unfair, you should tell the Central Bank. They will not respond on your particular complaint, but they will use it to inform their review.  Of course, in many cases, the CB will agree that you were properly informed. 

If you made a complaint to the Ombudsman and it was rejected, you should submit the Ombudsman's report to the CB. 

If you were out of time, you should submit your complaint. 

If you have seen the bank uphold a similar claim, you should bring that to their attention.


----------



## robe (7 Oct 2015)

Hi Brendan.  Do you have an email for the CB. And maybe a contact name. Thanks


----------



## Asphyxia (7 Oct 2015)

I am impressed by the fact that the bank's under investigation cannot hide behind the archaic 6 year rule ( which was set aside in the UK years ago, but not here, why ? Our courts system is based on the common law system in the UK ) Hopefully we will see some sanctions at last. Ireland as well as being the Financial wild west was also untethered in relation to consumer protections.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (7 Oct 2015)

Asphyxia said:


> Hopefully we will see some sanctions at last.



I am not sure that people are looking for sanctions. 

Their priority is to get their trackers back. 

If there was a deliberate attempt to get them off their trackers or if there were underhand activities, then it would suggest that the people involved are not fit and proper and should be kicked out of the industry. 

Brendan


----------



## Asphyxia (8 Oct 2015)

Brendan,

You and I know that this is exactly what occurred, hopefully the C.B.I. will come to the same conclusion.


----------



## todo (8 Oct 2015)

Thanks Brendan, for highlighting this. I hope that the central bank will seek justice for all the borrowers that were tricked out of their tracker rates.

I wonder what the time frame will be before we hear of any possible outcome or if we will hear anything at all?


----------



## rodger (9 Oct 2015)

Hi everyone,

How would people feel about a protest march outside the head office of the main banks BOI, Aib etc on a weekday morning? Get the media attention?

Placards such as:

Robbing bankers
Restore our trackers
Fire the bankers
Rotten bankers: give me back my money
Customers 1 bank executives 0

Because I don't see enough media attention given over to the plight of tracker holders who are being swindled by the daylight theiving of bank executives.

PTSB customers: how are they being treated? 

Being asked to send in medical evidence because PTSB broke there law? 

After they won their case! 

Does this need to go to European court?
Before authorities here begin to wake up.

We need to strike while the situation is being assessed by the C.B.I to show how serious people feel.

The cancerous disease in Irish banking must by rooted out. Hit the people at the top before they retire on fat pensions.

When these institutions are hit with a €10 million fine by the central bank for cheating what kind of bonus will the chief executives get then?

Hit them where it hurts.


----------



## Somar (9 Oct 2015)

In relation to the PTSB tracker saga, everyone that finds themselves in a position where their tracker was cheated away from them through PTSB manufacturing margains of interest rates above the ECB rate at the time, must now act and write their letter to the Department of Enforcement at the Central Bank while the CB investigation is ongoing. 
No point writing when investigation is over.
Forget about sanctions against bankers, will never happen in this country. Anne Furlong and her cronies in PTSB would steal their way out of that one, just as they stole away our trackers and in some cases much more.

If your original mortgage docs state you were entitled to a tracker and has no details of a margain above the ECB rate, then I am confident that after the CB investigation, these trackers will be restored to the correct ECB rate and the balance and compensation paid out.

Now is the time to act, so start writing and give names and mortgage a/c numbers. They won't write back but the info you send in will be used in the investigation.

This inducement of ordinary hard working customers off their trackers, by a lender bailed out by the very same customers is criminal, and were it brought before the European Courts would finish PTSB, so let's take the fight to them!!


----------



## belizebaby (9 Oct 2015)

Hi, 

to echo robe's question

what's the best way to get in contact with the Central Bank in relation to this ?

Thanks


----------



## rodger (9 Oct 2015)

I have had success emailing

enquiries@centralbank.ie

Might take couple of days to get a response. But they always respond.


----------



## Gerard123 (14 Oct 2015)

Thanks Rodger. 

I emailed that email address setting out my situation briefly, stating that I had a tracker, fixed the mortgage for a period, was not provided the option of a tracker on exiting fixed even though upfront documentation had stated I would be offered a tracker.  I also stated that I had appealed to the FSO and they ruled against me.  I had shown the paperwork, in advance of my appeal, to a very acknowledged/experienced financial advisor (who is a frequent contributor to this site) who confirmed that I had a very clear case and the documents were compelling.  Even with that the FSO ruled against me.  The Bank had very clearly misused/miscommunicated the original documentation I signed and represented it as something it never was.  With the only option of a High Court appeal I could not proceed. 

I would encourage others to do the same, write in with their comments to the email address you provide, where there is strong/good evidence to support their case.  I hope that it is genuine parties who write in, who can support their case rather than people 'chancing their arm' or feel aggrieved that they did not select a tracker.  I really believe that the strength of genuine cases is diluted massively where numerous parties make a claim for a tracker where there is no entitlement, much and all that that may be difficult to accept. 

To prevent the floodgates opening I feel the FSO has taken a very pro Bank side in tracker cases, and his rulings are very contradictory.  It should be that if the FSO makes a particular ruling based on a set of facts, that should set precedent, however it does not and it is left to each person to fight their own corner, sotospeak. 

Thanks all.


----------



## bogstandard (14 Oct 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I met with the Central Bank yesterday:
> 
> 8) They said that the 6 year rule did not apply to them. They were going back to 2006 when the Consumer Protection Code came into effect.



This point is of extreme importance especially for KBC tracker holders.

The code of conduct came into force on August 1st 2006. KBC pushed borrowers to move to fixed rates in May 2006 & July 2006 with a higlighted "expiry date" of July 22nd. It could be argued that KBC knew this was coming and wanted to get as many people off trackers as possible and the CB maybe should look at internal communications in KBC.

This would suggest that those who took a KBC, or any other institution's offer prior to August 1st 2006 will not be covered by the review.


My fixed rate was in August 2006 and under the CB code of conduct I should have been offered a 3 year capped tracker as this was the "most suitable" rate on offer. I should also have been made aware of the actual rate that would aply after the fixed rate ended. (based on current rates at the time).

I sent a complaint to FSO, but it was rejected as it was over 6 years since the inception of the fixed rate.

I sent a letter to CB in August and got a reply to say that my issue would be passed to the relevant people investigating trackers.


----------



## Sarenco (14 Oct 2015)

Hi Gerard

Could you clarify what you mean by the "upfront documentation"?  Did you receive preliminary documentation indicating something that was not ultimately reflected in the formal home loan agreement?  In other words, was there a conflict between the wording of two documents?


----------



## Gerard123 (14 Oct 2015)

Sarenco - I mean the documentation signed at the time of moving from the tracker to the fixed rate.  The FSO accepted that I was most definitely on a tracker before moving to fixed so no issue there.  Also the Bank did not dispute that I was on a tracker and entitled to the tracker in advance of moving to the fixed rate.

bogstandard - with the letter you sent to the CB, did you include all the information and support, for example the document you signed moving from tracker to fixed, a copy of the FSO ruling, etc?  Thanks.


----------



## Sarenco (14 Oct 2015)

Gerard123 said:


> Sarenco - I mean the documentation signed at the time of moving from the tracker to the fixed rate.  The FSO accepted that I was most definitely on a tracker before moving to fixed so no issue there.  Also the Bank did not dispute that I was on a tracker and entitled to the tracker in advance of moving to the fixed rate.



Understood but was the loan documentation clear that you were entitled to revert to a tracker rate on expiry of the fixed rate term?  That's really the key point.


----------



## Gerard123 (14 Oct 2015)

In my mind - Yes absolutely, Financial Advisors - Yes, no hesitation.  However, while certain in my own mind, and so as not to be wasting my, or indeed anyone's time, I ran my documents by two financial advisors to see if I had a solid case (third party opinion). 

One of these advisors is very experienced in these matters and has been in the media often (I didn't engage him formally so not using name here but I did send my documents to him and spoke to him on them).  Both advisors were of the view that my case was virtually water tight, that's how sure they were.  Because of the fact that they thought my case was so compelling I did the FSO work myself, big mistake in hindsight, and since there is no right of appeal to FSO (other than High Court) I had no other way to appeal or to then get an Advisor to help.

FSO - ruled against me though and was very much persuaded by the Banks arguments and, in my mind, a misrepresentation/miscommunication of a key document by the Bank. Once the FSO rules that's it, I was not provided with the Banks rationale or explanations prior to the Ruling so I had no chance to dispute what they said other than via High Court.

Anyway I do not wish to rehash the whole case as it was hugely time consuming, at this stage I really want to know how best to interact with the Central Bank on it, and encourage others to do the same.

Many thanks.


----------



## Sarenco (14 Oct 2015)

Ok but I would have thought it would be pretty clear - the loan documentation either says you are entitled to revert to a tracker rate at the end of the fixed rate period or it says something else. 

Where's the mystery?


----------



## Gerard123 (14 Oct 2015)

Sarenco said:


> Ok but I would have thought it would be pretty clear - the loan documentation either says you are entitled to revert to a tracker rate at the end of the fixed rate period or it says something else.



Yes one would have thought so also.  Then again if that was the case I guess there would be no need for a CB review of trackers, no recent PTSB issues, no return of trackers to a whole swathe of other people .... oh for a simple life indeed where plain English means just that, plain English.  Of course that's before Banks and lawyers get their hands on stuff and distort, misrepresent......... and seek to deny and distort plain English, the common mans view of plain English.........



Sarenco said:


> Where's the mystery?



Sorry to say, no mystery.  Perhaps a Banks creativity.  Does that qualify as a mystery?  Documentation that says you're entitled to a tracker can be misquoted, misrepresented, we don't do trackers anymore, yes the Bank told you, no they didn't, etc, etc  ............ a mystery? ......... your call!


----------



## Bobby43 (14 Oct 2015)

Can anybody cast light on our situation;
Loans obtained on two properties April 2006. 1 year fixed rate
May 2007 received letters offering a tracker or variable options. Following visit to Bank during which I was advised could have variable rate but could revert to tracker later. Opted for tracker on one and 3 year variable on other. Received letter confirming "account has been switched from a tracker rate to a fixed rate."
May 2010 sought to revert to tracker and told no longer possible.
Complained to FOS on basis that Bank misled us and no advise was given regarding the consequences of breaking from tracker. The complaint was not upheld.


----------



## Sarenco (14 Oct 2015)

Gerard123 said:


> Yes one would have thought so also.  Then again if that was the case I guess there would be no need for a CB review of trackers, no recent PTSB issues, no return of trackers to a whole swathe of other people .... oh for a simple life indeed where plain English means just that, plain English.  Of course that's before Banks and lawyers get their hands on stuff and distort, misrepresent......... and seek to deny and distort plain English, the common mans view of plain English.........



The PTSB issues related to borrowers that broke the term of their fixed mortgage rates early and who subsequently wanted to move to tracker rates. The fixed rate mortgages which these customers had been on included a provision that at the expiry of the fixed rate term the customers could revert to a tracker rate. However, as the customers had chosen to break the fixed rate term early, the bank did not permit them to revert to a tracker rate.  Ultimately, PTSB conceded that this was an incorrect approach and this lead to the establishment of the current redress scheme.

While I am not suggesting for a moment that you don't have a genuine grievance, I am still totally unclear what is the exact nature of your complaint.

Could you simply tell us exactly what your loan contract says in relation to reverting to a tracker on the expiry of the fixed rate period?  In plain English!

You are obviously under no obligation to do so but it may be helpful to others in a similar position.


----------



## Sarenco (14 Oct 2015)

Bobby43 said:


> Following visit to Bank during which I was advised could have variable rate but could revert to tracker later.



Have you anything in writing to that effect?  What does your loan contract say?


----------



## Bobby43 (14 Oct 2015)

No, nothing in writing except a letter acknowledging receipt of loan offer and confirming that  "account has been switched from a tracker rate to a fixed rate."
The contract states that initially the interest rate shall be fixed and at the end of the period both bank and borrower shall have the option of converting to a variable rate . No specific mention of " Tracker " but letter confirming end of fixed period offers a tracker as a default option.


----------



## Sarenco (14 Oct 2015)

Thanks Bobby.

Just so I'm clear - you started off on a tracker, fixed for a period and the loan terms provided that you could fix again at the end of the fixed term or opt for a variable rate.  Is that correct?

Could you be a bit more specific about the letter - did it use the word "offer" or did it say you would revert to a tracker in the absence of any contrary election on your part (the "default option")?  The exact wording is important.


----------



## Bobby43 (14 Oct 2015)

Hi Sarenco,
Started on 1 year fixed. the loan terms provided that we could fix again at the end of the fixed term or opt for a variable rate. this is  correct.

Letter states " Please find attached the current options available to you, including our competitive tracker variable rate...."
" If we do not receive a written instruction from you in relation to the above on or before...., we will automatically default your loan to the tracker variable rate.
The next letter from the bank was dated the day after the closing date and included the following "account has been switched from a tracker rate to a fixed rate."


----------



## Sarenco (14 Oct 2015)

Hi Bobby

So you started on a 1 year fixed rate and if you had done nothing at all you would have defaulted to a tracker rate on the expiry of the initial 1 year term.  Instead, you decided to fix again for a further 3 years and communicated this to the bank on or before the date upon which you would otherwise have defaulted to the tracker.  

Unfortunately, the loan contract relating to the 3 year fix did not provide that you would be entitled to a tracker at the end of the 3 year term and the bank did not repeat the same offer that they made during the initial 1 year fixed rate term that would have allowed you to opt for (or default onto) a tracker.

Have I got all that right?


----------



## rodger (14 Oct 2015)

Gerard123

Can you tell me if your case is with Aib and was there two or three options at the end of the fixed rate?

There are examples like this where in the case of the 3 options i believe both Aib and ombudsman are handing back tracker. Indo august.

In the case of the two options it has been less straightforward although I know they are entitled and will win if goes to court.
I am in that boat.

What we really need the CBI to do is to start handing back trackers en masse to those who are entitled and not have each person fight his own corner as Gerard said.

Hope this helps.

Did everyone see the article in indo today?
By Charlie Weston.
Padraic Kissane and Brendan Burgess contributed.
Brendan made the point that CBI should review all negative FSOB decisions.

That is an excellent idea.

I also suggest although this is obvious but I haven't heard anyone actually say it... All positive FSOB decisions should be rolled out to all likewise customers.
Further any cases where the bank caved in before a ruling by FSOB should similarly be applied to all similar customers.

The whole thing is rife with inconsistencies.

And works to the advantage of the banks.

The fsob got it wrong in 2010, 2012. 
And for that reason keeps coming back to similar cases.

Hopefully the CBI will get it right once and for all.


----------



## rodger (14 Oct 2015)

Here is the article in today's Indo by Charlie Weston:

http://www.independent.ie/business/...have-been-rejected-by-ombudsman-31606690.html

With all the fuss about the budget in the news this may not have jumped out or got much airplay.


----------



## Bobby43 (14 Oct 2015)

HI Sarenco,Rodger,
Please see following;

So you started on a 1 year fixed rate and if you had done nothing at all you would have defaulted to a tracker rate on the expiry of the initial 1 year term. Instead, you decided to fix again for a further 3 years and communicated this to the bank. AFTER  the date upon which you would otherwise have defaulted to the tracker.Hence the letter dated the following day and it's confirming that "account has been switched from a tracker rate to a fixed rate."It is important to note that one mortgage was allowed to default into a tracker and the other fixed.

Unfortunately, the loan contract relating to the 3 year fix did not provide that you would be entitled to a tracker at the end of the 3 year term and the bank did not repeat the same offer that they made during the initial 1 year fixed rate term that would have allowed you to opt for (or default onto) a tracker. This is so. The official in the branch office told me however that I would be able to revert to a tracker at the expiry of the three year fixed period and it was this that persuaded me to fix  the interest rate.The CBI have issued comments a number of times about the requirement for lenders to give sufficient informationregarding the consequences of breaking from the tracker. No such advise was given at the time.

I have not yet seen to-days article but will read it now. It is likely to be similar in tone to everything else that has appeared in print recently


----------



## rodger (14 Oct 2015)

What will the CBI do in their review?

Here is what I would suggest (if I was the central bank)

*Phase 1: Investigation*

First go through the FSOB cases with fine tooth comb. 
Take "positive" rulings and ensure all customers (even ex customers) get same benefit.
Take bank concessions (where bank caved in but FSOB didn't actually make a ruling) and ensure all customers (even ex customers) get same benefit.
Take "negative" rulings and reopen them: fresh start on each one ignoring completely what the FSOB ruled.
Next gather industry experts (Padraic Kissane, Brendan Burgess, IMHO, etc etc) and get their insights.
Next invite members of the public to submit their experiences (maybe advertise).
Maybe ask ex-bankers to tell their story confidentially. 
Look for meeting minutes from around that time 
Obviously get itemised lists of all customers who were EVER on a tracker. 
Organise trackers into buckets according to each set of terms and conditions
Arrive at a ruling with careful consultation on each "bucket". Look to industry experts to buy in to all decisions.


*Phase 2: Action*

Having reached conclusions on what actions to be taken, bring in the bankers into a meeting tell them about the €10m fines they are facing 
Inform them of the cases that are going back on tracker.
Inform them of the compensation they are going to provide ( I would say a minimum of 50% of the money owed to customers). 
Blanket and immediate refund: never mind a redress scheme
Further hardship cases can be argued subsequently with legal experts

*Phase 3: Penalties*

Finally apply those €10m fines because that's the only way they will learn.
Strike off those banking directors who are found to be responsible and deny them their pensions.


----------



## rodger (14 Oct 2015)

bobby43: did the bank act in your best interests? No? Then you have a case.


----------



## Bobby43 (14 Oct 2015)

rodger said:


> bobby43: did the bank act in your best interests? No? Then you have a case.


Definitely not. Thanks for that Rodger We concur and I am going to send a package of documentation to the central bank and see where that gets me.Have read the article and it seems that the Central Bank are becoming quite serious now. Hopefully it will work out for all of us in the end


----------



## Sarenco (14 Oct 2015)

Bobby43 said:


> HI Sarenco,Rodger,
> Please see following;
> 
> So you started on a 1 year fixed rate and if you had done nothing at all you would have defaulted to a tracker rate on the expiry of the initial 1 year term. Instead, you decided to fix again for a further 3 years and communicated this to the bank. AFTER  the date upon which you would otherwise have defaulted to the tracker.Hence the letter dated the following day and it's confirming that "account has been switched from a tracker rate to a fixed rate."It is important to note that one mortgage was allowed to default into a tracker and the other fixed.
> ...




Thanks - the first point looks like it might be promising.  

Are you saying the bank put you onto a new, 3 year, fixed rate without your consent or agreement?  Ignore the date of the letter of confirmation from the bank for a moment, did you ever advise the bank that you wanted to fix for a further three years?  If you did, when did you advise the bank that you wanted to fix your rate for a further 3 years?  Critically, was it before or after the date upon which you would otherwise have defaulted to a tracker?

I'm confused by your reference to breaking out of a tracker.  Were you ever on a tracker or did you ever break out of a fixed rate mortgage in circumstances where you would have been entitled to revert to a tracker if you had not broken out of your fixed rate?

Apologies for all the questions but the detail is critical.


----------



## Sarenco (14 Oct 2015)

rodger said:


> bobby43: did the bank act in your best interests? No? Then you have a case.



Whatever gave you that impression! 

Banks are not required to act in the best interests of their borrowers.  Just like any other company, banks are required to act in the best interests of their shareholders.

Do you expect Tesco to act in your best interests?  No?  Well, why do you think banks are any different.

They are businesses - not charities - and have a legal obligation to maximise the value of their shareholders' capital investment.


----------



## rodger (14 Oct 2015)

quote from today's article:

It said it was engaging closely with a number of lenders to ensure they acted in the best interests of customers who had trackers at some point.


----------



## rodger (14 Oct 2015)

Sarenco asked: Where did I get that idea?

Quote:
The Central Bank added: "We remain concerned that there may be other tracker-related issues which could be impacting on consumers across the system." It said it was engaging closely with a number of lenders to ensure they acted in the best interests of customers who had trackers at some point.


----------



## Sarenco (15 Oct 2015)

rodger said:


> Sarenco asked: Where did I get that idea?
> 
> Quote:
> The Central Bank added: "We remain concerned that there may be other tracker-related issues which could be impacting on consumers across the system." It said it was engaging closely with a number of lenders to ensure they acted in the best interests of customers who had trackers at some point.



No doubt but you said that somebody would have a case if a bank did not act in their best interests.  As a standalone statement, that is untrue.


----------



## Sarenco (15 Oct 2015)

rodger said:


> quote from today's article:
> 
> It said it was engaging closely with a number of lenders to ensure they acted in the best interests of customers who had trackers at some point.



No doubt they are but from what we have been told so far (a) Bobby was never at any point on a tracker rate; and (b) Bobby never broke out of a fixed rate mortgage in circumstances where that resulted in the loss of a tracker that he or she would otherwise have been entitled to at the end of the fixed rate period.


----------



## bogstandard (19 Oct 2015)

Article in indo today (not enough posts to give link)

Maybe the FSO is finally realising that they are meant to protect the consumer and not the bank.

Without getting too excited, this is all looking very positive for those wiho were cheated out of trackers by underhand tactics of banks - KBC in particular who gave you less than 10 days to respond to their unsolicited "Special fixed rate Offer"  in bold type. And then put in tiny font "get independent legal advice" - yeah right, less than 10 days to get independent legal advice, make informed decision and get form back in case rates rise again and you miss out as the "specail rate" would expire.

What a ruse. 

Maybe, just maybe, there will be justice.


----------



## Bronte (19 Oct 2015)

Financial ombudsman to look at 500 tracker mortgage cases that his office rejected to see if they were wrongly dismissed

http://www.independent.ie/business/...ers-as-tracker-probe-is-widened-34120959.html

Article from *Charlie Weston* in the Irish Independant. It was also mentioned on the radio this weekend as RTE had an interview the ombudsman. Weston has been brillant on this issue with many article over the years. 

_The Financial Services Ombudsman’s office is now reviewing all of the decisions it made in the past five years, when homeowners took complaints to it after losing tracker mortgages, the Irish Independent has learned.


The Central Bank is already investigating all the lenders in the market over taking trackers from people, and the review by the ombudsman will feed into this._

and AAM poster *Padraic Kissane* who has done trojan work in this area is also mentioned:

Financial adviser Padraic Kissane, who specialises in helping customers get trackers back, said banks that refused to put people back on trackers

after they fixed were in breach of Central Bank rules.

“The floodgates will open with thousands of people having trackers restored and getting compensation,” he predicted.


----------



## Bronte (19 Oct 2015)

bogstandard said:


> Maybe, just maybe, there will be justice.



If you are one of the 500 or a potential member make sure you alert the FO to review your case.


----------



## PadKiss (19 Oct 2015)

PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO THE CONSUMER
12 A regulated entity must ensure that all information it provides to a consumer is clear and comprehensible, and that key items are brought to the attention of the consumer. The method of presentation must not disguise, diminish or obscure important information.


----------



## PadKiss (19 Oct 2015)

Sorry sent the previous post before typing my comment 
This is from the Consumer Protection Code 2006 and clearly highlights my concerns on the matter of Trackers. And note it states the Consumer Protection Code, will update later on what is to occur as it is ongoing at present but I have met with the Central Bank and the Financial Ombudsman on the matter
Padraic


----------



## bogstandard (19 Oct 2015)

Would anyone hazard a guess on how long this review will take?

6months? 12 Months? or longer?


----------



## rodger (19 Oct 2015)

Will FSOB and CBI make rulings as they find them?

Or will FSOB/ CBI wait until everything is decided and issue all rulings in one final decree?

The second option will take longer.

And then will there be redress boards?


----------



## random2011 (19 Oct 2015)

This entire situation is a farce. By the sounds of it those affected (outside the redress scheme and inside) will be waiting for another 6 months if not longer. We all know how long it took for the last PTSB investigation to complete which is not yet fully completed. Why does the bank for the sake of it's reputation just hold their hands up and deal with the overall issue for once and for all. Re-instate trackers to all who were entitled and pay correct refunds on same. They are in the media every week for the wrong reasons and you would wonder why upper management is allowing this to be the case.


----------



## Rebuttal (19 Oct 2015)

Sarenco said:


> Whatever gave you that impression!
> 
> Banks are not required to act in the best interests of their borrowers.  Just like any other company, banks are required to act in the best interests of their shareholders.
> 
> ...



Sarenco,


I would refer you to to the follow, chapter 2 of the Consumer Protection Code 2006.

PRINCIPLES

A regulated entity must ensure that in all its dealings with customers and within the context of its authorisation it:


2.1  acts honestly, fairly and professionally in the best interests of its customers and the integrity of the market;


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


2.3  does not recklessly, negligently or deliberately mislead a customer as to the

real or perceived advantages or disadvantages of any product or service;


2.4  has and employs effectively the resources, policies and procedures, systems and control checks, including compliance checks, and staff training that are necessary for compliance with this Code;


2.5  seeks from its customers information relevant to the product or service requested;


2.6  makes full disclosure of all relevant material information, including all charges, in a way that seeks to inform the customer;


2.7  seeks to avoid conflicts of interest;


2.8  corrects errors and handles complaints speedily, efficiently and fairly; 


Our courts have turned a blind eye to this code to date, stating that breaches of the code do not shield a borrower from a bank enforcing its security, so maybe the Central Bank Of Ireland is finally going to flex it's muscles and use it's administrative sanction processes for such breaches.

I might add that borrowers in mortgage difficulty should examine their respective loan agreement terms. Sometimes banks put in self onerous clauses that stitch the consumer protection code or indeed the Consumer Protection Act 1995 into the fabric of the loan agreement. If this be the case, a borrower can use said breaches of the code or statute as a defence in any court action by the bank. What is more, if there is a term like that included in a borrowers loan agreement, any such breach of the relevant code or statute referred to, that causes loss or damage to the borrower, can be classed as a breach of contract by the bank.


----------



## Sarenco (19 Oct 2015)

I am familiar with the Code. 

I was responding to an incorrect statement to the effect that a borrower has a case if a lender does not act in their best interests.  A breach of the Code does not, of itself, give rise to a cause of action against a regulated entity. 

I wouldn't agree that the Courts have "turned a blind eye" to the Central Banks various codes.  On the contrary, the Supreme Court has clarified (but not ignored) the very limited role of the Courts in administering the Central Bank's codes.

I have never seen a loan agreement that is drafted in the manner suggested.


----------



## Rebuttal (19 Oct 2015)

Sarenco said:


> I am familiar with the Code.
> 
> I was responding to an incorrect statement to the effect that a borrower has a case if a lender does not act in their best interests.  A breach of the Code does not, of itself, give rise to a cause of action against a regulated entity.
> 
> ...



Sarenco,

Look up  National Irish Bank / Danske bank contracts.


----------



## Sarenco (19 Oct 2015)

I don't have access to any Danske loan contracts.  Please see free to quote an extract.


----------



## rodger (19 Oct 2015)

What bobby said:
" If we do not receive a written instruction from you in relation to the above on or before...., we will automatically default your loan to the tracker variable rate.
The next letter from the bank was dated the day after the closing date and included the following "account has been switched from a tracker rate to a fixed rate."

So the bank intended to default to tracker
But then did a u turn?

That seems to be a plausible case.

Keep in mind what Bobby asked is did he have a case. Not did he have a watertight case.

Sounds to me like he has as case.

And sounds like that annoys sarenco


----------



## Sarenco (19 Oct 2015)

I'm not annoyed!  I was simply trying to tease out what the case might be.

I can only assume that the bank did receive an instruction to put Bobby on a new 3-year fixed rate mortgage on the expiry of the original fixed rate term.  If Bobby did not give this instruction to the bank then, absolutely, there's a case for breach of contract.  The fact that the Bank confirmed the arrangement after the date upon which Bobby would otherwise have defaulted to a tracker is a red herring - the real question is whether or not the bank received any instruction from Bobby on or before the default date.

Bobby may well have a case but I can't see it from the facts as presented so far.


----------



## Rebuttal (20 Oct 2015)

Sarenco,

As far as the bank's are concerned, assume nothing.


----------



## Leighlinboy (22 Oct 2015)

From reading the scope of the CB's review in press release i had a modicum of hope, but this thread seems to be implying  that cases need to be similar in context to PTSB.....in my own case was  on KBC Tracker , bombarded with letters as the rates flew up went up , moved to 5 year fixed..........lost tracker in process, several cases rejected by FSO which were word for word similar to my own,documentations wording was sufficient in those cases, so havent approached ombudmsan   , probably still within 6 year period ...maybe i was honing in on the piece re banks practices, transparency informing you of implications etc ............heres hoping its all encompassing review of all practices around trackers .  Fair play Brendan and Padraic for sticking with this for so long !


----------



## Bronte (22 Oct 2015)

If you have a modicum of hope Leighlinboy you should submit a case to the Ombudsman, the way things are now in there it would seem to me the odds have moved away from the banks to the customers.  Nothing ventured nothing gained.


----------



## Staffy (4 Nov 2015)

I requested that the FSO review my case and they have written back stating that they cannot review it as a decision was made and can only be referred to the high court? I thought the FSO were reviewing Tracker cases? My case was partially upheld.


----------



## Sarenco (4 Nov 2015)

Leighlinboy said:


> From reading the scope of the CB's review in press release i had a modicum of hope, but this thread seems to be implying  that cases need to be similar in context to PTSB.....in my own case was  on KBC Tracker , bombarded with letters as the rates flew up went up , moved to 5 year fixed..........lost tracker in process, several cases rejected by FSO which were word for word similar to my own,documentations wording was sufficient in those cases, so havent approached ombudmsan   , probably still within 6 year period ...maybe i was honing in on the piece re banks practices, transparency informing you of implications etc ............heres hoping its all encompassing review of all practices around trackers .  Fair play Brendan and Padraic for sticking with this for so long !



I certainly wouldn't jump to that conclusion.

The relevant PTSB borrowers had a contractual entitlement to default back to a tracker rate on the expiry of their fixed terms and the High Court upheld decisions of the FSO that this entitlement captured circumstances where a borrower broke out of the fixed term early.

However, the Central Bank may well take the view that even where it is clear, on the face of it, that there is no similar contractual entitlement to default back to a tracker, the circumstances in which borrowers with trackers were persuaded to enter into fixed term contracts was such that it gave rise to a breach of the Consumer Protection Code.  If the Central Bank does come to that conclusion, it seems probable that the Central Bank would order any relevant lenders (and KBC seem to be very much in the frame here) to permit borrowers to choose to revert back to a tracker rate, notwithstanding the terms of their contract and may, possibly, also order compensation to be paid to impacted borrowers under threat of financial sanction.

I don't have any particular insight into the Central Bank's current review but I definitely wouldn't give up all hope that it will not produce a favourable result for certain borrowers.


----------



## todo (4 Nov 2015)

Staffy said:


> I requested that the FSO review my case and they have written back stating that they cannot review it as a decision was made and can only be referred to the high court? I thought the FSO were reviewing Tracker cases? My case was partially upheld.


Hi Staffy,
       I am curious in what way was your case partially upheld. Did you get some part of your loan back on a tracker?


----------



## Gerard123 (4 Nov 2015)

Staffy said:


> I requested that the FSO review my case and they have written back stating that they cannot review it as a decision was made and can only be referred to the high court? I thought the FSO were reviewing Tracker cases? My case was partially upheld.



I sent an email to the Central Bank and received a reply which stated the following:
 "I should also add that in our statement on the examination of tracker-mortgage related issues, we mentioned that we have been engaging with consumer groups as well as the Financial Services Ombudsman to help inform our work."

I then sent a letter to the Central bank setting out comments and errors that I felt were of a systematic nature and also included relevant details from my FSO case so as to assist and inform the Central Bank with their examination of tracker issues.  I received a reply from the CB which stated, "I confirm that I have forwarded it to the consumer division for information."

I also sent a copy of the CB letter to the FSO asking that my case be included in any review that they (FSO) are currently doing.  I received a very generic reply, don't have it to hand, but it didn't add much.  Pretty much said the same thing as you (Staffy) quoted. 

I am aware that others have done something similar.  If you feel you have a case it may be worth doing something similar, ie bringing the attention of the CB to it.  Important to note that the CB is not reviewing individual cases,  to quote it:

"It is important to advise you that the Central Bank does not have a statutory role in investigating individual consumer complaints against financial service providers, nor does it have a statutory role in considering decisions made by the Financial Services Ombudsman."  The CB also stated:

"Regarding the broader examination of tracker mortgage-related issues, we are currently working on a methodology for our examination and we are liaising very closely with key consumer stakeholders, including the Financial Services Ombudsman, to make sure that our examination will cover all issues which are potentially impacting on consumers.  As the scope of the examination will potentially be very broad, it is likely that it will take a considerable length of time to complete.  Our priority in this examination, as always, is getting the right outcome for consumers."

Therefore it is important to highlight matters that are indicating systematic issues and errors, rather than simply focusing exclusively on your own case.  Your own case clearly helps to inform.


----------



## Leighlinboy (4 Nov 2015)

I received a copy of the form I signed to fix from Kbc today, was only 4 years back when I came off 5 year fixed and was moved to variable (having been on tracker previously )so still within the timeframes allowed . Will follow up with central bank and fso and see where it takes me . The thread has outlined many good points to support my complaint , thanks . As post above says might not get much more than automated response from CB ,but need fso to realise the issues affecting KBC customers who jumped/were pushed off their trackers in 2006/2007 and the underlying conditions and behaviour of the bank at that time which certainly impacted my decision .


----------



## bogstandard (6 Nov 2015)

Leighlinboy said:


> I received a copy of the form I signed to fix from Kbc today, was only 4 years back when I came off 5 year fixed and was moved to variable (having been on tracker previously )so still within the timeframes allowed . Will follow up with central bank and fso and see where it takes me . The thread has outlined many good points to support my complaint , thanks . As post above says might not get much more than automated response from CB ,but need fso to realise the issues affecting KBC customers who jumped/were pushed off their trackers in 2006/2007 and the underlying conditions and behaviour of the bank at that time which certainly impacted my decision .


I think the fso goes from the date of the fixed rate instruction rather than the date of when you noticed it.

Also no-one has answered the query on CB code of conduct - this came into effect on Aug 1st 2006 and KBC had expiry date of july 22nd on many of their fixed rate documents - hence it is possible that no matter what the outcome,  many kbc customers will be left out.


----------

