No - it depends on what roll off rate was stated and any other info. The flyer certainly gives some hope.And the fact that we fixed from the start doesn't automatically rule out the possibility of being entitled to a tracker?
As such, I would suggest that you might be better advised to focus your arguments on whether or not your lender breached any regulatory requirements regarding disclosure and transparency of information.
It shows further proof that a "standard variable rate" did not exist at IIB at the time.
It shows that there was obvious confusion with some brokers and iib decided to clarify.The flyer says that "all IIB Homeloan fixed rates will now roll onto tracker rate on expiry". What would be point of making this statement if a tracker rate and a standard variable rate are one and the same?
The flyer also shows three different tracker rates - there was no "standard" tracker rate.
No - it depends on what roll off rate was stated and any other info. The flyer certainly gives some hope.
If you don't have the paperwork you can request it - this includes all communication regarding your mortgage.
If they have not clearly defined what 'prevailing variable rate' is in the documentation, then my belief is that you have a case.
DamC82, we immediately fixed too. However, our contract states that we would roll onto "prevailing tracker rate" at end of fixed period. We have been given the tracker back, albeit at a stupid rate, but that's another fight!
Yes, that's the exact wording. We were automatically put on tracker last July when PTSB news broke.
Our rate is 3.25% + ECB. We are engaging with Padraic Kissane about the rate and will most likely be going to Court!
I beg to differ - I would guess you work in a financial or similar field where such terminoly is part of everyday language, but the ordinary punter would not know.I'm sorry but I just don't buy the argument that anybody would have understood a reference to a standard variable rate to mean a tracker rate. Ultimately, of course, it doesn't matter what I think but in my opinion this argument is simply untenable.
I beg to differ - I would guess you work in a financial or similar field where such terminoly is part of everyday language, but the ordinary punter would not know.
In any case, you are twisting the argument. What I and many others have said is that the wording "revert to company's standard variable rate" meant to them (and I) that it reverted to the standard rate of the main mortgage document - which was the "standard variable rate" that IIB offered at the time. As in posts above, there was no other "standard variable rate" available. A tracker WAS the standard variable rate in the mortgage market in 2005-2007.
Even a report out today confirms the illiteracy amongst people regarding mortgages and interest rates - "Mortgage Brain managing director Michael Quinn said the research has highlighted "surprisingly low levels of mortgage literacy" in this country. More education was needed, he said."
And as you probably know, where there is ambiguity, the argument will side with the consumer. There is absolutley no doubt that people did not know that a standard variable rate was a very specific rate - and one that did not appear in a glossary of terms or in any correspondance, advertising or mortgage offer at the time.
Peemac I wish I shared your optimism about the Central Bank agreeing with this and forcing the bank to take action. I am in the exact same circumstance and KBC have already wrote me a definitive letter saying they were "clear and concise". That is their stance. The FSO also rejected similar cases to us. So if it was as simple as that then the review of the documentation would not take this long and the banks would not be spending so much money and putting so much resources into the investigation. KBC will stand their ground till the end. I of course hope like you do but I will be in total shock if the Central Bank actually take action, and if they do I fully expect KBC will challenge it.
Your case sounds very similar to mine, what differenciates KBC in these cases form AIB & PTSB, their paperwork & wording are obviously acceptable to the FSO & CB thus far?
As in posts above, there was no other "standard variable rate" available.
And as you probably know, where there is ambiguity, the argument will side with the consumer. There is absolutley no doubt that people did not know that a standard variable rate was a very specific rate - and one that did not appear in a glossary of terms or in any correspondance, advertising or mortgage offer at the time.