KBC KBC told brokers" all fixed rate loans will roll onto trackers on expiry"

[Sarenco]

Well I strongly disagree that a borrower that has paid absolutely nothing (or only made trivial payments) for years and is not engaging with his lender should not have a repossession order made against him simply because his mortgage is included in a review.

More importantly, I'm positive the Courts wouldn't agree with your view.

There are ample procedures available to borrowers to resolve their issues.

 

[demoivre]

Well I strongly disagree that a borrower that has paid absolutely nothing (or only made trivial payments) for years and is not engaging with his lender should not have a repossession order made against him simply because his mortgage is included in a review.

More importantly, I'm positive the Courts wouldn't agree with your view.

I'm positive they would. €292 may be regarded as a trivial payment on a €350k loan at 4.25%. It is not a trivial payment on a €350k loan at 1%. I can't see any judge making an order in this scenario where there is a possibility the bank have erred by wrongly moving a borrower from a tracker, and should have been charging 1%.

 

[Sarenco]

Sorry demoivre but you are trying to shift the goal posts again.

You said

a repossession order should not be granted pending the results of the review, and I stand by that.

Regardless of the circumstances of any individual case, your view is that no repossession order should (would?) be granted in respect of a mortgage that is included in a tracker review, pending the completion of that review. Full stop. No exceptions.

You specifically referenced a borrower that is making no repayments at all and suggested that no repossession order would be made in those circumstances simply because the mortgage was included in a tracker review. Frankly, I think you are fooling yourself and I am absolutely positive that a Court would not defer the making of a repossession order solely on that basis.

For a second time, you have tried to drag the discussion off to what you consider a meaningful payment. Why? If no repossession order can be made pending the completion of the review why would it matter whether a borrower is making any payments at all - meaningful or otherwise.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't necessarily consider a monthly payment of €292 to be trivial or negligible in the context of a €350k loan. But that's not relevant to your original point.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I think what Demoivre is getting at is establishing the outstanding debt due to the lender.

 

[Onceagain]

Think that's the problem, the Central Bank havent issued timelines, so the banks arent breaking their backs.

 

[Sligolive]

Hopefully kbc announce a provision in their Irish accounts tomorrow regarding tracker redress. Qtr 4 2016 update due tomorrow morning.

 

[Leighlinboy]

Quick scan through it , no joy ?!

 

[Sligolive]

No reference unfortunately. Also, the KBC CEO was quite evasive when questioned this morning on RTE Radio 1 about the status of the review. The saga continues. It does not look promising when there is not a reference to a provision.

 

[PJDCol]

They won't even give the number that they reached out to....

Mr Verbraeken said today that the bank has reached out to a "certain number" of its customers who may have been affected by overcharging issues where banks wrongly prevented people from reverting to their tracker rates after they had fixed their home loans.

Mr Verbraeken declined to say how many KBC customers may have lost their homes as a result, adding that a loss of ownership is very often multi-factorial and there can be a number of items at play.

He said that KBC Bank Ireland was still working with the Central Bank on the issue.

"We are not in a position yet to come out publicly on the extent of this matter within KBC - we are still in the process of working with the Central Bank," the bank CEO said.

"We have already reached out to a certain number of customers where we have identified that we either made a mistake or failed in our contractual duties," he added.

 

[ASK12]

That sounds promising to me at least they sound like they admit to having the problem

 

[Lightening]

"We are not in a position yet to come out publicly on the extent of this matter within KBC - we are still in the process of working with the Central Bank," the bank CEO said.

"We have already reached out to a certain number of customers where we have identified that we either made a mistake or failed in our contractual duties," he added.
-----
Pathetic!
am sure the only reason "they reached out to a certain number of customers" was for the sole purpose of putting his statement above into the report due out today. They have to appear to be "doing something".

We don't buy it Mr Verbraeken!

 

[Lightening]

I understand the amount of customers involved is "minute" so why didn't he say

"A small number of customers".

Playing games and still dragging their feet.

 

[PJDCol]

I think we have established a long time ago that KBC will do anything and have no remorse about this situation. Having dealt with them for myself and others, the KBC team dealing with the tracker review have the same answers and attitude on the topic. The few cases I have seen could not be any more clear that they were wrong so it would be interesting to see who these "certain number of customers" contracts looked like. When I spoke to them last I got the impression this was literally only a handful of people.

At this stage after years of dealing with them, I feel you are wasting your time in general hoping they will just suddenly charge their tune. I wish the CBI would release more regular updates on this than every 6 months or whatever. The CBI admit this is the most significant supervisory review undertaken in the context of consumer protection mandate (with over 8,000 people affect) and they don't even have a dedicated helpline!!

 

[Lightening]

Absolutely agree it's "A handful" (just to appear to be doing something) I would like to know who these handful are and under what circumstances they are are "impacted".

 

[demoivre]

Regardless of the circumstances of any individual case, your view is that no repossession order should (would?) be granted in respect of a mortgage that is included in a tracker review, pending the completion of that review. Full stop. No exceptions.

In general that is my view. A judge will take each case on it's own merits. You've introduced "would", I said "should" ie a possession order should not be granted pending the review.

You specifically referenced a borrower that is making no repayments at all and suggested that no repossession order would be made in those circumstances simply because the mortgage was included in a tracker review. Frankly, I think you are fooling yourself and I am absolutely positive that a Court would not defer the making of a repossession order solely on that basis.

The only reason the borrower, in the case I referred to, stopped paying altogether was because he felt he had no chance whatsoever of recovering the situation when his rate was 4.5% on a loan of €400k odd. His view of his situation would have been totally different had his rate been 1%, which could well turn out to be the case. He wasn't even told he was part of the tracker review. How a bank would even want to have this guy thrown out of his house, without the review being completed, given the possibility ( in my view strong possibility ) that the bank have made a serious error in the rate they have applied to his account, is beyond me. Litigation anyone?

For a second time, you have tried to drag the discussion off to what you consider a meaningful payment. Why? If no repossession order can be made pending the completion of the review why would it matter whether a borrower is making any payments at all - meaningful or otherwise.

You were the one who introduced negligible and trivial payments and you don't seem to get the point that a payment of €300pm on a €500k loan @4.5% is not the same as the same payment on the same loan on a tracker of 1%.

 

[demoivre]

Mr Verbraeken declined to say how many KBC customers may have lost their homes as a result, adding that a loss of ownership is very often multi-factorial and there can be a number of items at play.

Ultimately it comes down to affordability and the difference between repayments on a loan @4.5% versus repayments at a tracker rate of 1% is massive by any metric.

 

[Tedtalk]

I think the comments sound potentially good for any impacted KBC holders. KBC will struggle to include a provision if it cannot yet be quantified. It will only be a contingency/contingent liability.

I haven't been able to confirm what was mentioned on Newstalk on Tuesday but enforcement and the term individuals were mentioned. Therefore other banks may be fined. If examinations are ongoing and fines are still uncertain, they can't determine provisions.

 

[PJDCol]

Its seems to me that they are pushing all the blame onto the Brokers. The fact this was their only source of mortgages at the time and the fact that every single loan offer seems to be worded different, I can see now why it is going to take time. Our total reliance of any result is now the CBI.

 

[Sligolive]

Good news folks - Irish Times today report........ horrrayyy!!!!!!!!

“We have booked a level of provision in 2016,” Mr Verbraeken said, when asked about the extent to which it has sent aside money for redress, compensation and other costs relating to the matter, declining to give a figure.

 

[Sarenco]

A judge will take each case on it's own merits.

Absolutely - that's my point. However, you said that no order should be made pending completion of the review. You now appear to be resiing from that position by acknowledging that each case should actually be considered on its own merits, with no automatic adjournment.

You've introduced "would", I said "should" ie a possession order should not be granted pending the review.

No, you initially said that no order should be made pending completion of the review and subsequently said that you were positive that the Courts would agree with you. Well, if the Courts agree with your view, doesn't it follow that no order would be made pending completion of the review?

The only reason the borrower, in the case I referred to, stopped paying altogether was because he felt he had no chance whatsoever of recovering the situation when his rate was 4.5% on a loan of €400k odd.

I don't see why the feelings or motives of a borrower should have any bearing on this matter.

A lender can form its own view whether or not to proceed. The Courts should not be seeking to protect a lender from subsequent litigation - that's not their role.

You were the one who introduced negligible and trivial payments and you don't seem to get the point that a payment of €300pm on a €500k loan @4.5% is not the same as the same payment on the same loan on a tracker of 1%.

Eh, a payment of €300pm is a payment of €300pm regardless of the interest rate on the loan.

ignoring mortgage interest relief, the monthly payment on a €400k mortgage @1% over 30 years is €1,288, as against €2,005 at a rate of 4.5% - a difference of €719pm. If a borrower could meet the contracted repayments at the tracker rate, then he could certainly meet the interest payments @4.5%.

Again, this has nothing to do with the point under discussion - whether or not a repossession order should be made pending completion of the tracker review regardless of the merits of any individual case.