Incorrectly lost my BTL Tracker. But sold BTL. Appeal rejected.

The FSPO in correspondence is now referencing “coming weeks” for release of the 2019 decisions and NOT end of Jan 2020 as presented to the finance committee. A possible further kick of the can down the road unless it’s just a poorly written response to me.
 
Dpdp01050842 said:
No it’s not a mistake. I know as it was discussed when I drew down the mortgage. The EBS position is that all BTLs with the price promise in the contracts (likely 100’s) were mistakes. They say this clause being included was a “manual error” and “should not have been included” but “we have now decided to honour it”.

June 2008

* and error above. My rate should have been ECB + 1.5%. My current annual interest due would now be €2,700 instead of the last year before I sold of €12,010.

Of course my decision to sell was a purely commercial decision and the rate had nothing to do with it. I’m your ordinary irrational loss seeking investor.
Click to expand...
I got the same thing about them saying that it was a mistake from them but that they decided to honour it by refunding the over payment. Then separately they argue that they were attempting to give me a better rate. However, I had a contract and they were in breach of it.
I like your comment about the decision to sell being a commercial decision and the rate being nothing to do with it. The combined genius of the Solicitor, the Accountant and the Customer service rep on the independent appeals panel truly believe that we are all irrational loss seeking investors.
By the way, I’m aware that the panel requested additional information from the bank but this was never provided to me. They have failed in their obligations under the terms of reference. They also have not provided an adequate reason for rejecting my appeal and so are again failing in their obligations.
On a final note, there was a large volume of redacted information in my Freedom if information request. They claim that they are entitled to withhold the information for commercial reasons. The central banks guidelines on this matter are that these proceedings should be treated as they would be in the Irish Courts ( which should include full disclosure).
But then why should they comply with any of this when their is no penalty for non compliance?
 
Yeah it’s a joke. I guess the best thing to do is be grateful that the stupid process is over in the hope the FSPO will see that we are not a bunch of loons who sell property without consideration for the value of our investments
 
Dpdp01050842 said:
Yeah it’s a joke. I guess the best thing to do is be grateful that the stupid process is over in the hope the FSPO will see that we are not a bunch of loons who sell property without consideration for the value of our investments
Click to expand...
Hi Dpdp. Did you ever get any further with this?
 
Hi Fakenews and DPD

I had a tracker rate with EBS but on my Principle Private residence . Now a lost home but we share the same story of EBS.

1. Discounted tracker transferred to undiscounted rate after a year, wrongfully transferred to a standard variable rate in 2008 when both the SVR and their tracker rate diverged.

2. Engaged with bank very early on, when we initially got into financial difficulty.

2. Refused oral hearing outright.

3. Appeal rejected on the basis that their ''error'' was not the cause of the sale.

Mortgage repayments were 1600 p/m which should have been circa 1200 p/m if the breach didn't occur. Received 22k as redress and compensation, no home, no tracker reinstated. Residual debt of 160k was written off.

Advised to avoid the ombudsman and proceed directly with High Court proceedings.

The CBI published examples of affected people and sums involved. In one particular case a bank gave 174k for a lost home. The example given was very similar to ours, yet we had such a drastically different outcome.

Starting to think is the example is even real!
 
Did you all get Padraic Kissane to represent you for appeal? Best €4k I ever spent re BTL / tracker not applied/ EBS forced sale.
 
Trackman said:
The CBI published examples of affected people and sums involved. In one particular case a bank gave 174k for a lost home. The example given was very similar to ours, yet we had such a drastically different outcome.
Click to expand...

Hi Trackman. Is there a link to the CBI examples? Quite interested.
 
Correction. 216K Redress and compensation. Page 19. Luke
 

Attachments

  • update-on-tracker-mortgage-examination---july-2019.pdf
    849.9 KB · Views: 178
https://www.fspo.ie/decisions/documents/2021-0178.pdf
Extract from the judgement
“That being said, I recognise that the overpayments on the Complainant’s mortgage loan accounts had a significant direct impact on the funds that the Complainant had available to him to service his mortgage loans, and other expenses, during this time period.
I am of the view that an overpayment of interest on average of €775.89 per month for a period of 105 months is significant. Throughout this period, the Complainant was denied the opportunity of making informed decisions about his finances as he did not know the true position with respect to the repayments that were actually due and owing on the mortgage loan accounts.
During this time, the Complainant was challenged financially as he was servicing a number of mortgage loans. I have no doubt that the number of mortgage loans held in and of itself placed a strain on the Complainant’s finances and it cannot but be the case that the unavailability of the sums of money overcharged on a monthly basis caused additional hardship and serious inconvenience to the Complainant during this period. I am of the view that the evidence supports the Complainant’s position that the overcharge on the Complainant’s mortgage loan accounts impacted the Complainant’s financial position and ability to service his debts. It is evident from the Complainant’s submissions that it has been a source of major inconvenience during the impacted period and the Complainant was required to engage with the Provider to seek a number of forbearance arrangements to be in a position to continue to service mortgage loan account ending 7489 and prevent arrears arising.

Taking into consideration all of the evidence before me in terms of the level of overcharging and the extended period over which the overcharging occurred, the impact such overcharging had on the Complainant, I am of the view that the level of compensation offered of €26,906.24 is not sufficient or reasonable to compensate the Complainant for the inconvenience suffered by the Complainant during the impacted period.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top