@Sanparom Only some posters have said that "in their opinion" a prevailing rate was a tracker rate. Unfortunately the opinion of a few posters (and my opinion on things) makes no odds with a bank or any other company or institution.
Where it came from was from those who took out a mortgage when trackers were the only variable rate offered and then they fixed. So in a way, those people (including myself) could contrue that the "reverting to" variable rate was the variable rate written in their contract. In a way, with no glossary of terms, from a legal point of view, the only variable rate I and others at that particular time could have knowledge of is that written in the contract.
With the CB examination on all banks there has to be something in writing that could in some way make a borrower believe they had a right to a tracker. In KBC's case its either those who were advised by brokers to fix because they had a written communication from the banks staing all new business who fixed from Nov 7th 2006 would roll onto specified tracker rates, or those who originally had a tracker and then fixed for a period from 2005-2008. Those who fixed later were given very clear information that the tracker would be gone (as per CB guidelines).
If you have a copy of your mortgage agreement, spend a couple of hours reading it and see if there's anything in it about the rates. Usually its in the last couple of pages.
I see that you drew down in 2005, so its when tacker was all the rage, so you woudl really need to read the contract word for word to see if there's anything you could rely on. Even check the exact wording of the fixed rate details. - If no information of what the "prevailing rate" was, then there's an angle to take.
