First Active Lost Tracker but switched Mortgage

There have been some cases where the FRA said that the mortgage would default onto a tracker at the end of the fixed period. The lender claimed that they no longer did trackers. The FSO said that this was no excuse and ordered the lender to give the person back their tracker.

The particular case is not at all clear as some people are claiming. I know the case I would make as the borrower. I also know the case I would make as the lender. The wording is clear in that you default onto the SVR unless you request to transfer to the prevailing tracker rate. As you made that request and as you were told that they were no longer available, I think that the FSO will find that you should have been offered the prevailing tracker rate, whatever that was. The word "prevailing" makes it unclear though. Ulster Bank can validly argue that there was no prevailing rate. It would have been much clearer if they told you that you would default onto your original tracker rate.
 
Brendan i take your point but crazy to think it's ok to put the onus back on the customer.

Refer again to pint 2 on suitability in CPC above. All options should have been outlined to me so if I had the option to take a tracker it should have been offered to me when fixed expired.

Prevailing is unclear I agree.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
As you made that request and as you were told that they were no longer available, I think that the FSO will find that you should have been offered the prevailing tracker rate, whatever that was.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the posts but I thought corktim's problem was that he didn't make that request. If he had there wouldn't be a problem - UB were still offering trackers so there would be no ambiguity as to their prevailing terms. No?
 
I did enquire at branch but was told they were not offering them anymore. I didn't look into it at the time and who would think that a bank was trying to do you out of a tracker so blatantly.


Yes they were still offering trackers at the time.
My view still stands that they should have offered the tracker to me when they wrote to me advising that my fixed was expiring. They had no problem advising me of my fixed rate options.
 

But you didn't enter into a new contract or arrangement when your fixed term expired so the provisions of the CPC regarding the suitability of products, etc., don't arise save as regards your fixed-term contract.

Your (fixed-term) contract itself specified what rate you would default to at the end of the fixed rate period in the absence of any action on your part. It is the suitability, etc., of that fixed term contract that's relevant.
 
I disagree. Every lender writes to its customers before fixed rates expire advising them of their rate options.

UB wrote to me but did not advise of my tracker option. This is also covered under CPC suitability. Don't tell me that it's ok for a bank to hide better rate options on customers....
 
corktim said:
I did enquire at branch but was told they were not offering them anymore. I didn't look into it at the time and who would think that a bank was trying to do you out of a tracker so blatantly.
Click to expand...

Now I'm confused. I thought you said UB were offering trackers at the time - is there some ambiguity around this point?

If you can prove that UB staff misrepresented the factual position to you at the time then you should definitely make a formal complaint.
 
Cases may be slightly different. What the CB is investigating are not individual cases as far as they communicated to me. My understanding is that they are looking more at systematic issues. Did UB set about getting people off trackers by not doing things properly in accordance with documentation, with the code, etc. Over to the CB.

Corktim. From my reading it seems clear that they should have given you the option of a tracker but didn't.
 
They were still offering them but they didn't offer me one. My fixed expired in Aug 08 and they stopped offering trackers in September.
I can't prove the verbal conversation but it is widely know that trackers were still available in Aug 08.
There was no mention of a tracker when my fixed expired. This is why I'm so angry because they told me they were not doing them anymore and I should have been offered the option when they wrote to me advising of my other rate options pre expiry of the fixed.
 
Sarenco said:
If you can prove that UB staff misrepresented the factual position to you at the time then you should definitely make a formal complaint.
Click to expand...

Absent a recording how would one prove this? Impossible. Look at what was required. Did the Bank meet its obligations under the code? Appears not. Wrong to make it the consumers responsibility to prove these things. Code is there to protect the consumer surely? If he was entitled to the option of a tracker and the bank did not provide it in their communication then surely the bank was wrong. Could be deliberate, could be innocent. Doesn't matter in my mind. The code requires the bank to do things properly, it did not. End of as far as I am concerned.
 
corktim said:
They were still offering them but they didn't offer me one. My fixed expired in Aug 08 and they stopped offering trackers in September.
Click to expand...

Ah, ok, now I think I understand the factual position.

So FA did in fact write to you outlining your options before the expiry of your fixed rate term but didn't include a tracker option in that communication. You queried this at the time but were told by branch staff that FA no longer had a tracker offering and now you believe that this was factually inaccurate - that FA did in fact have a tracker offering at that time. Is that all correct?

I don't know exactly when FA stopped offering trackers (I think it was sometime in September 2008 as you suggest) but if you can demonstrate that FA did in fact have a tracker offering at the time that your fixed term expired then I would suggest that you write to the relevant UB unit (copying the Central Bank) explaining the chronology of events and why you believe that FA did not fully observe its contractual obligations to you.

Frankly, I think you are wasting your time advancing arguments based on the CPC. It's simply not relevant.

Do you have any idea what margin over the ECB rate FA were offering on trackers at the time?
 
FA stopped offering trackers for new mortgage applications in June/July 08, can't remember exact date but those already issued a loan offer had until Sept to draw down.
 
Couple of points that some people seem to be missing:

Customers of FA who fixed should have the option of a tracker regardless whether still available to new customers or not. That was the arrangement at the start of the FRA.

There was a miscommunication at the end of the fixed rate period. Some might say a trick by FA. On the one hand the legality stipulated the customer needed to indicate they wanted to move you tracker. They did verbally but were told it was not an option. On paper they did not choose tracker because it was not presented in the paper work as an option! To me what FA did was disgraceful.


All this talk about prevailing rate. Hold the horses. Prevailing refers to the varying ecb rate.

Otherwise it's some kind of rate lottery as we have seen at PTSB.

The customer has a rate agreed at the start of the contract. That is ecb + done margin. The margin is not subject to change. If that was the case the definition of prevailing would need to be defined as such. And I have never seen such a definition.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Monbretia said:
FA stopped offering trackers for new mortgage applications in June/July 08, can't remember exact date but those already issued a loan offer had until Sept to draw down.
Click to expand...

Hi Monbretia

That timing doesn't seem to quite correspond with media reports at the time.

According to the Herald on 14 July 2008, UB and FA still had tracker offerings at that time but increased the margin offered over the ECB rate to 2.00% and 2.25% respectively.

http://www.herald.ie/news/struggling-banks-withdraw-tracker-mortgage-option-27878682.html

The Indo didn't report that UB and FA had withdrawn their tracker offering until 23 September 2008.

http://www.independent.ie/business/...s-of-rbs-withdraw-tracker-loans-26479007.html
 
Well that's just my recollection, it is a good while ago, I remember the initial withdrawal of trackers particularly because I was actually in hospital in mid June 08 and was off work for 4 weeks and when I went back to work the whole scene had changed, trackers were gone for new applicants and existing offers only had a set length of time to draw down, to my recollection that was end Sept but there could have been an extension to Dec, there often was for ending products such as certain fixed rate offerings but it doesn't seem likely that this particular one would have got an extension if they were trying to stop people drawing them down. I remember nothing but co-operation between branches/head office to try and get as many people drawn down in time as possible.
 
Rodger

The FA contract very clearly does not provide that the borrower will default back to the original tracker rate (or the prevailing tracker rate) on expiry of the fixed term.

On the contrary, the contract clearly provides that the borrower will default to a standard variable rate (not linked to ECB) unless the borrower requests another fix or requests to transfer the mortgage to FA's prevailing tracker offering.

Hence the importance of determining whether or not FA had a tracker offering at the relevant time.
 
I am another customer affected by this FA tracker to fixed (2007-2009) to SVR debacle, and my case is identical to some of those presented here. I've also discussed it previously in other threads and with other posters on here. There are also parallels on some aspects of some of the other cases discussed here eg the "loss" of key documents such as a copy of the options letter at the end of fixed rate (which I never signed, by the way) from my data access request. I did request to return to tracker both at the time of fixing AND at the end of the fixed rate period but it turned into a scenario of my word vs theirs. To add insult to injury, Ulster Bank have been untruthful and deceitful in their responses to me and to the (former) FSO's office - and yet he sided with them in my case in 2011. I have continued to fight this over the years in what ever way I saw fit, and I hope that in whatever small way this has contributed to this review. If nothing else, the CB action gives me back some hope and some sense of justice.
 
Sarenco said:
Frankly, I think you are wasting your time advancing arguments based on the CPC. It's simply not relevant.
Click to expand...

Hi Sarenco

I don't understand why you think that the CPC is not relevant?

Is a lender not obliged to behave in accordance with the CPC?

If it's found that UB did not comply with the CPC, then I would imagine that the complainant has a case.

By the way, this is a general point and not relating to just the case in this post.

Are you saying that the CPC has no force? I have argued that the CPC requires lenders to treat customers fairly. I have argued that charging existing customers with the same criteria as new customers higher rates is not fair and therefore is in breach of the CPC. Forget for the moment whether you think that is fair or not - are you saying it's just irrelevant? If so, what is the point of the CPC?
 
It's not the issue whether FA had a tracker offering or not.

And I never disputed what the default option was.

So you're talking at cross purposes to what I said.

What I am saying is the guys tried to indicate their preference to move to tracker as required in the original FRA.

At the end of the fixed rate period they were required to opt for tracker which they did verbally. And were verbally refused.

As to whether the bank had an option to discontinue offering existing customers is the point.

You seem to think they could enter into an agreement for two years with an option of a tracker at the end. And the bank pulls the rug from under their feet during the two years. And says actually that's not an option.
You think that's a possibility!!!
I find it incredible anyone would entertain that idea.
 
Hi Brendan

I was only talking about this specific case.

A regulated provider is certainly obliged to comply with the CPC as a regulatory matter even if the provisions of the CPC are not enforceable by a customer in any court.

Corktim was arguing (as I understand it) that FA was in breach of the CPC by not offering him a more suitable product option (a tracker) prior to the end of the fixed term. However, Corktim wasn't actually being offered or recommended any new product at that time that could be assessed from a suitability perspective.

There was no new agreement or arrangement - the default rate was set out in the fixed term mortgage - so the only product of relevance from a suitability perspective was the fixed-term mortgage itself.

That's why I think the key question is whether or not FA had a tracker offering at the time. If they did then Corktim had a contractual right to request to transfer to their prevailing offering. If they didn't, well, there's no prevailing offering to which he could have transferred.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register