AIB I fixed one half and got €1,615 - but the other was on a tracker

Mehaul

Registered User
Messages
19
Brendan,

Thanks for everyting.

There is another variation on the split that's not listed here. Some people have split mortgages with one half tracker and, at the time, one half fixed. When the fixed portion broke, they were placed on variables with no option to go on tracker. This Fixed-now-Variable portion has been deemed impacted and the Cheque for €1615 issued so the redress detailed above is due.

The Obudsman's decision did not address this particular variant specifically, but there is an argument to follow that this Fixed-now-variable portion should have the true prevailing tracker rate at the time - the tracker rate applied to the other portion of the mortgage secured on the same property - applied to this portion of the mortgage. This variant still needs to be considered by the Ombudsman, especially in light of their finding above. There is an established prevailing rate in these cases and it's nowhere near 3%.
 
Clause 3.2 is very clear to me

3.2 FURTHER FIXED INTEREST RATE OPTIONS/CHOICE

At the end of any fixed interest rate period, the Customer may choose between: (a) a further fixed interest rate period, or

(b) conversion to a variable interest rate Mortgage Loan, or

(c) conversion to a tracker interest rate Mortgage Loan,

at the Bank's then prevailing rates appropriate to the Mortgage Loan. If the Customer does not exercise this choice, then the Mortgage Loan will automatically convert to a variable interest rate Mortgage Loan.


The "then prevailing" clearly refers to the end of the fixed rate period, and not the start of the fixed rate or any other time.

Arguments that they refer to the rate prevailing on draw down have no merit, in my opinion.

You could argue that as AIB had broken the contract and not offered you the "then prevailing rate", they cannot be allowed to set the rate in retrospect - 10 years later. The Court or the Ombudsman are likely to agree with that.

You could then further argue that in the absence of a prevailing rate, the only appropriate rate to substitute for it would be the rate prevailing at draw down. I doubt it would succeed so I would not be asking the High Court. But it would cost you nothing to go to the Ombudsman.

Have you lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman on this issue?

Brendan
 
I had raised an Appeal via BDO, but held off appealing to the Ombudsman pending some class of decision as advised here. I'm going to raise the appeal to the Ombudsman based on my aruments previously raised (and rejected btw).

My argument is not about the previaling rate at drawdown, rather the prevailing - or active - rate at the time; the prevailing rate on a mortgage secured on the same asset, in fact. That this happens to be the same as the rate at drawdown doesn't impact my argument.

It's certainly much earlier in the list of possible definitions for the then prevailing rate, than a made up one concocted 10 years after the fact with the benefit of hindsight and a good measure of self interest influencing the number.
 
rather the prevailing - or active - rate at the time; the prevailing rate on a mortgage secured on the same asset, in fact. T

Excellent argument.

Be careful how you frame it. It should be along the lines of

1) The contract allows AIB to change the prevailing rate but they did not do so.
2) The contract requires them to offer me a prevailing rate but it did not do so
3) They cannot set the prevailing rate retrospectively
4)We need to find some objective of the "then prevailing rate"
5) There it is on the other half of my mortgage

And don't make the mistake that others make. Talking about all sorts of other points which are not relevant about how they omitted a page in a SARS request of how the Appeals Panel is not independent.

This is a very simple point.
If the Ombudsman accepts it - great.
If not, then you get the general compensation.

I think you should probably hold off until July or August to see what they offer.

Brendan
 
Brendan,

Thanks for everyting.

There is another variation on the split that's not listed here. Some people have split mortgages with one half tracker and, at the time, one half fixed. When the fixed portion broke, they were placed on variables with no option to go on tracker. This Fixed-now-Variable portion has been deemed impacted and the Cheque for €1615 issued so the redress detailed above is due.

The Obudsman's decision did not address this particular variant specifically, but there is an argument to follow that this Fixed-now-variable portion should have the true prevailing tracker rate at the time - the tracker rate applied to the other portion of the mortgage secured on the same property - applied to this portion of the mortgage. This variant still needs to be considered by the Ombudsman, especially in light of their finding above. There is an established prevailing rate in these cases and it's nowhere near 3%.


Mehaul.

I am in exact same position as we split mortgage in 2007 tracker and fixed onto variable. Tracker .75 ecb rate.
From 2009 ..to now huge difference in interest paid and money off capital. Comparing the monthly variable to monthly tracker per month is substantial
 
I'm in the same boat. Will take Brendan's advice re holding off until I see what they offer in July/August before doing anything.
 
Back
Top