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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Definitely a positive thing that they have made a provision for redress ,didnt look that way when looking at report this morning . Still get the feeling they are in no rush and will wait and see how Central Bank respond to them ....
 
Yes we are just waiting for the Central Bank now. I assume KBC would appeal everything as well.....
 
Anybody here anything fresh from KBC lately? Are the the only lender who hasnt returned at least some to their trackers yet?
 
Just got through to Kbc today. Even though back in December I was told from them all their work was done and imminent plan was to contact costumers. They seemingly contacted a couple..... haven't heard of any one that was one of those people. Today I was told they don't expect any new information until July. They said when I asked where is my file in the proceedings they said they haven't finished with it yet. When I asked the why was I told it had been dealt with and listed some of the many contradictions they've told me I was told they'd phone me back. So none the wiser.
 
Yes the same for me. I ring them the start of every month the update was no update. The same comment that an update is expected in mid 2017. Also as always they would give no particular comment on my file

I am thinking of applying under the Data Protection Act and at least I will have some information on my file in the next 40 days. Has anyone else done this?
 
Thank Lightening. Did you find it useful or is it a waste of time?

I saw a comment from Ger Deering at the Oireachtas Finance Committee yesterday that "a large number of complaints are made by people who feel aggrieved that they were never offered a tracker rate, and these were unlikely to be successful". This doesn't sound good for some.
 
Sarenco said:
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.

.
Click to expand...

Any borrower in such circumstances would be well advised to tell the court their mortgage was under review and that therefore the court judgement would need to be deferred. Anything else makes no sense.

Are you actually suggesting a court makes an order, without the correct figures, because this person is under review, the correct figures, could be either correct or incorrect, and if they are incorrect, and it means the borrower could now engage, having given up becuase at 4% it was unsustainable, that the court should order reposition, get evicted and then the bank says, sorry, here's 50 k for our eviction based on wrong figures.

Seems like a very callous attitude to borrowers. Which is exactly what the high handed banks having being done since the crash.
 
Sarenco said:
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.

.
Click to expand...

You can't see why a customer forced into a situation of paying an unsustainable mortgage, because of the high interest rate, might make the decision to give up. Do you know how depressed people became when this happened to them. Some lost their homes even though it wouldn't have happened if the banks hadn't deliberately taken away their trackers.

And you think it's ok to now take away a home, something that people will commit suicide over, and the break up of families, and that if it was all a 'mistake' by the bank, sure the borrower can go back to court for redress by more litigation. Is that what you are suggesting?
 
Hi Lightening, after the data you recieved, do you feel confident you are going to be due a refund and put back on the tracker
 
Bronte said:
Are you actually suggesting a court makes an order, without the correct figures, because this person is under review, the correct figures, could be either correct or incorrect, and if they are incorrect, and it means the borrower could now engage, having given up becuase at 4% it was unsustainable, that the court should order reposition, get evicted and then the bank says, sorry, here's 50 k for our eviction based on wrong figures.
Click to expand...

No Bronte - I was very specific that, in my opinion, every case should be considered on its own merits and there shouldn't be a crude embargo on granting possession orders simply because a mortgage is included in a tracker review.

By way of an example, a borrower may have abandoned a property without making any loan repayments or otherwise engaging with their lender for years. If a lender is not able to secure a possession order in those circumstances then the property will continue to lie idle and will rapidly deteriorate. That is not a good result for anybody, particularly given our current accommodation crises.
 
Bronte said:
And you think it's ok to now take away a home, something that people will commit suicide over, and the break up of families, and that if it was all a 'mistake' by the bank, sure the borrower can go back to court for redress by more litigation. Is that what you are suggesting?
Click to expand...

No, Bronte - I suggested nothing of the sort.

You are, I assume deliberately, grossly misrepresenting what I actually said for some odd reason.

Again, for the avoidance of any doubt, my point is simply that every case should be considered on its own merits without any crude, blanket embargo on granting possession orders on mortgages solely because they are included in a review exercise.
 
Sarenco said:
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%.
Click to expand...

FWIW the IO payments @4.5% would be €1500 pm but either way this case is unlikely to end in a court room ie if borrower can pay €1288 pm on €400k some alternative arrangement will be made. The concern would be for the borrower on an erroneous rate of 4.5% but only able to pay €333 per month ie covers IO at 1% but nowhere near covering IO at 4.5%. Case should be adjourned pending results of Central Bank tracker review , which should be the case in general for mortgages coming under this review.
 
Again, every case should be decided on its own merits - there is no need to introduce a further automatic adjournment.

The Courts have demonstrated that they will give defaulting borrowers every opportunity to remediate their position if there is any realistic possibility that their mortgage can be put back on a sustainable footing.

The Indo ran a story today about a possession order being granted against a borrower that first defaulted 9 years ago - following 13 adjournments! The idea that a further automatic adjournment could take effect in these circumstances makes no sense.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...ow-as-judge-orders-repossession-35519018.html
 
This thread, like others before it, go off on other tangents. It would be nice if this remained for updates on the KBC tracker review examination and that's it.
 
And on that note has anyone any updates, is anyone getting anywhere with kbc? Was anyone one of the people who kbc contacted in their first batch????
 
The last update I have from the bank and from others is that they expect to have an update by June. They would no budge at all on the phone when I asked them questions.

I also contacted the Central Bank directly to complain about the slow movement from both them and the bank. They had the same sort of response but the main point was:

"We expect to see more lenders engaging with impacted customers over the next few months. Based on current progress we expect that relevant lenders will have identified and commenced engagement with impacted customers by mid-2017"

There has been no comment from anyone been part of the first batch on here from what I can see. I get the impression from KBC when I asked them about it that it was only a handful of people.
 
Sarenco said:
Again, every case should be decided on its own merits - there is no need to introduce a further automatic adjournment.

The Courts have demonstrated that they will give defaulting borrowers every opportunity to remediate their position if there is any realistic possibility that their mortgage can be put back on a sustainable footing.

The Indo ran a story today about a possession order being granted against a borrower that first defaulted 9 years ago - following 13 adjournments! The idea that a further automatic adjournment could take effect in these circumstances makes no sense.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...ow-as-judge-orders-repossession-35519018.html
Click to expand...

I totally disagree. If the mortgage in this case comes under the tracker review, and the bank should have been applying a tracker rate of 1% instead of a variable rate of say 4.25% since 2005, would this whole scenario have played out at all? That is the pertinent question. €317k IO @1% would be only €264 per month whereas @4.25% the IO payments would be €1123 per month. Big difference ! And now the guy seems to be paying €1200 pm and a split can't be done, seems odd !
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top