Hi Unfortunate
I see you have got no reply from the forum.
Perhaps that’s your answer.
I think the term must be explained differently by each bank.
AIB’s understand is the prevailing rate was the rate offered when the mortgage was drawn down,
KBCs understanding of the prevailing rate was that it revered to the rate available on expiry of the fixed term, the CB obviously won this arguement in KBCs case.
But KBCs was tied to the informous flyer.
The problem the banks have is, no matter what’s dictionary you look at the wort prevailing means, before the current time. Or some point in history. Not the future.
The disclaimer by most instructions that covers most eventualities is, previous performance does not guarentee future performance.
In the case of Mortgage contracts, and fixed rates in particular, the banks inverted this caviat because a fixed rate is normally a discounted rate. So the banks wish to revert you to a higher rate on expiration of the fixed term. (There Bad)
In my case my fixed term was 4.99% for 3 years fixed but the prevailing rate was 5.99% Tracker Variable in 2008.
It’s a bit like the crash, the banks did not see a situation of zero interest rate, they did not see there cost of borrowing higher than that of what they had set in tracker contracts.
So they decided to work on what was best for them at the time. However if the ECB rate had of moved to 7.5% the bank would have stuck every fixed rate on expiration to a tracker of 8.5% approx and higher in some cases.
So again it’s all contract interpretation, and the banks decided to view all contracts in there favour. This will be there undoing.
As stated before, when the tracker scam is finished it will be the Variable rate scam next. And I can tell you the banks are nervous about the current situation.
The only challenge to this thus far was the Millers v Danske Bank. Ombudsman rules in favour of bank, Miller’s appealed high court said ombudsman remit was not to interpret contract law, and both Danske and Ombudsman appealed.
This was never brought to the ECJ, but I’m sure it will be in the future. I was willing to start a fund me campaign for the millers at the time. I contacted there solicitor at the time but got no response.
And the term challenge then was current market conditions this was interpreted very narrowly in the Irish context not a European context.
So in my opinion lost more to see here. And when interest rates rise the banks will be watched very closely, if they raise SVR, this will go to the ECJ I have no doubt.
The banks can’t only operate in one direction.
That’s my penny’s worth as long winded as it is.
I’m still on for the go fund me campaign, if every person who gets redress puts in for the SVR Scam the banks will have a dump on themselves.
We all know what it’s like to be screwed so those left behind deserve some support from the Tracker winners.
Let’s see if there is a mood for this type of action on this forum.
