Banks told to cut interest rates or law will force you

Sounds like good news but I won't hold my breath. Watch the ducking and diving from all concerned parties and a long drawn out process.
 
A token 0.25 % is as far as they will go, then it will be a few more months of sqawking to avoid any further reduction until the budget comes round. The Government will then move a few chess pieces around (probably reduce that awful DIRT tax) and then another token reduction. Cannot see much movement in the rate.
 
Mr Weston of Indo has been on the Banks for quite a while and not just on SVRS.

Like me I presume he is awe struck that the people being charged this havn,t gone ballistic yet!

Anyone on SVR should be hammering the door of their local TD and saying GET it reduced now and not .25%.
In what other sphere would anyone allow 333 each mth (on k200 mortgage) continue.

I have seen war over e10 much less e333 .

Pester, pester,pester , your TD.
 
So the campaign must also insist that SVR customers are ´compensated´for the differential between Tracker and SVR rates right back to original contract date?
Therefore a large re-payment directly from the bank equating to compensated amount as a one-off deduction from outstanding capital per mortgage?
How likely is this to happen i wonder.....
And if i sell my property now which has an SVR attached will that de-bar me from this compensation?
This is another crucial element of this campaign.
Like others i am contacting local TD´s.
 
Aidan McGrath said:
So the campaign must also insist that SVR customers are ´compensated´for the differential between Tracker and SVR rates right back to original contract date?
Click to expand...

Where are you getting this from? No one is even remotely suggesting that borrowers on SVRs should be put on cheap tracker rates.

Borrowers who had cheap trackers who lost them through trickery by the lenders, should get them back, but not borrowers who never had them.
 
Brendan,
OK - so the campaign is focusing on removing the SVR interest rate increases over the past 4/5 years which banks have added to SVR rates which were purported to compensate banks for the extra cost of funds they were obliged to pay on the interbank market? In my case about 2.25% extra (EBS).
Or is the campaign trying to align SVR to tracker rates at a point in time?
Thanks,
 
i think simply put, it's just trying to ensure that SVRs are fair and reflective of the banks' costs of funds, that they shouldn't be high to shore up other (potentially) loss making products such as trackers.

no one seems to be suggesting that this should be back dated, just rebased
 
But why not back-dated?
My contract with EBS was for a SVR rate chargeable at a rate which reflected EBS´s cost of acquiring the funds it lent to me in 2002. I have never missed a repayment thus i have met my contractual duties.
EBS have varied their contractual duties - they have charged me for their current cost of fund acquisition rather than historic and they have managed to 'warehouse' my loan and re-package some years ago even though in 2002 i expressly told them i did not wish the loan to be 'warehoused' and re-packaged.
They have written to me and varied four times , - three rate increases and once to warehouse and re-package without seeking my agreement.
Therefore they are in breach.
Any thoughts..
 
Aidan

There are two separate issues. Mackemdub has articulated the campaign objective very well - to get people charged fair mortgage rates.

No one is suggesting that they should be charged tracker rates.

A few have suggested that they should be back-dated. This will not be done voluntarily by the banks, by the Central Bank or by the government.

But, if Ross Maguire's legal challenge to the rates is successful, then I imagine that they would be back-dated.

It's a very tough campaign to get the rates brought down. That would be a huge achievement and I think it is achievable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register