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

[DamC82]

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 variable 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. Also remember, there is no phrase "tracker rate" used in the mortgage document either. The rate was a "Variable Rate mortgage" and in the special conditions it stated that such variable rate would be X% above the ECB rate.

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.

I have received further paperwork today from KBC , an interesting development perhaps , that attached to our original application form the underwriters letter and capped tracker is clearly marked on the form.
Has this any relevance or would contracts and letters of offer supersede any of this. we claim that we thought capped tracker was indeed a form of fixed rate and that is what we believed we were getting rather than the standard fixed rate. Indeed in hindsight , for the life of me I dont know why we would have opted of standard fixed over a capped tracker at that time, the capped tracker was a no-brainer? I fixed at substantially higher rate than the tracker could have ever reached in the same period

 

[peemac]

To be honest, I think you are reading words into your contract that simply aren't there. Your contract simply says you will default to the bank's standard variable rate - it doesn't say you will default to a standard variable rate that is widely marketed or otherwise generally offered or made available to new borrowers when your fixed term expires.



I don't agree that there is any ambiguity in the contract wording - it looks perfectly clear to me. I also disagree that a reasonably observant and prudent borrower in 2005-2007 would have thought that a standard variable rate referred to a tracker - what tracker rate could they have thought was the standard variable rate? There was no standard tracker rate.

.

Can you explain how someone new to mortgage lending and not involved in the financial industry and who has not had a previous mortgage or motor loan or even an overdraft in 2006 would know that "standard variable rate" was a specific rate and when someone says "revert" to a standard variable rate and that the mortgage you have just taken out is stated as a "variable rate annuity mortgage"nand the ONLY variable option rate offered by IIB (I dealt direct) would think that it would revert to some hidden rate, unpublicised and undocumented in any glossary?

There are aspects of my business that within the business, everyone would know what i talk about, but would be a foreign language to customers. In a customer contract we have to explain any term that would not be known by each and every customer. I'm a small business.

Maybe banks in your opinion should operate under different rules where terminology does not need to be explained and the banks can assume that the consumer should know everything?
Thankfully the Central Bank doesn't see it that way and the code of conduct, particularly the more recent codes show that too.

 

[Sarenco]

Thankfully the Central Bank doesn't see it that way and the code of conduct, particularly the more recent codes show that too.

Again, for at least the third time, I think you should seek to argue that your lender did not observe the relevant regulatory disclosure/transparency requirements as they existed at the relevant time, rather than trying to place an artificial interpretation on the actual words used in your contract.

If you disagree with that advice that's absolutely fine.

 

[DamC82]

Again, for at least the third time, I think you should seek to argue that your lender did not observe the relevant regulatory disclosure/transparency requirements as they existed at the relevant time, rather than trying to place an artificial interpretation on the actual words used in your contract.

If you disagree with that advice that's absolutely fine.

What were the regulatory disclosure/transparency requirements circa 2006/2007? In so far as not clearly outlining all mortgage rate options?
It has become apparant to me in the last few weeks that a capped tracker @4.99% was a far better deal than fixing for the same 3 year period from 07-10 @ 5.85. For the life of me I cant understand why, if this was offered , we'd have fixed at such a rate

 

[Sarenco]

What were the regulatory disclosure/transparency requirements circa 2006/2007?

The consumer protection code (August 2006 version).

There is no obligation on a lender to offer any particular mortgage product (or any mortgage at all) to any particular borrower.

[broken link removed]

 

[peemac]

Again, for at least the third time, I think you should seek to argue that your lender did not observe the relevant regulatory disclosure/transparency requirements as they existed at the relevant time, rather than trying to place an artificial interpretation on the actual words used in your contract.

If you disagree with that advice that's absolutely fine.

The thing is none of us have any further input as the 6 year limit is well gone, but we're showing how unfair the document was to the customer from a lay consumer point of view and the Central Bank thinks the same way as otherwise there would be no investigation and banks such as AIB would not have set aside €150m to correct the issue.

 

[peemac]

The consumer protection code (August 2006 version).

There is no obligation on a lender to offer any particular mortgage product (or any mortgage at all) to any particular borrower.

[broken link removed]

I'd disagree -

SUITABILITY 30 A regulated entity must ensure that, having regard to the facts disclosed by the consumer and other relevant facts about that consumer of which the regulated entity is aware:
a) any product or service offered to a consumer is suitable to that consumer;
b) where it offers a selection of product options to the consumer, the product options contained in the selection represent the most suitable from the range available to the regulated entity; or
c) where it recommends a product to a consumer, the recommended product is the most suitable product for that consumer.

IIB were the ones offering the fixed rates as an option against rising rates. A Capped tracker was "the most suitable" option available for the reason IIB gave as the reason for sending the fixed rate instruction.

 

[Sarenco]

The thing is none of us have any further input as the 6 year limit is well gone, but we're showing how unfair the document was to the customer from a lay consumer point of view and the Central Bank thinks the same way as otherwise there would be no investigation and banks such as AIB would not have set aside €150m to correct the issue.

Central Bank is not assessing or adjudicating upon the fairness or otherwise of any mortgage contracts as part of this process. Again...

Under the current phase of the review process, lenders are required to identify any customers who may have been impacted by:

• a lender's failure to honour a customer's contractual entitlements; or
  
• its failure to comply with the applicable regulatory disclosure requirements.

There is nothing stopping you from making a submission to the Central Bank as part of this process and many impacted borrowers have already done so.

AIB has actually established a provision for €105m in its accounts to address any redress payments that might arise following this review process.

 

[Sarenco]

I'd disagree -

SUITABILITY 30 A regulated entity must ensure that, having regard to the facts disclosed by the consumer and other relevant facts about that consumer of which the regulated entity is aware:
a) any product or service offered to a consumer is suitable to that consumer;
b) where it offers a selection of product options to the consumer, the product options contained in the selection represent the most suitable from the range available to the regulated entity; or
c) where it recommends a product to a consumer, the recommended product is the most suitable product for that consumer.

There is nothing in that section of the Code that requires a lender to offer a particular mortgage product (or any mortgage at all) to a borrower.

The highlighted wording relates to a situation where a selection of product options is offered to a customer, which I understand was not the case in these circumstances.

 

[DamC82]

I got correspondance yesterday from KBC and it mentioned that my account was included in their central bank instructed examination of tracker mortgage related issues due to conclude 30th September 2016. Is this review a result of this flyer, or are all banks being forced to carry out this review ?

 

[TheBarrall]

Hi there, Just to let you all know, I signed up to kbc 2005, took a fixed rated Sept 2006 for 5 years, I called them on Friday and was told my account is not for consideration for tracker probe, so it looks like they are not going for the wording on the fixed rate forms, seems that it looks like the timing you took the contract out, as DamC, who advised fixed for 3 yrs from 2007 and didnt have a tracker is now possibly getting one.

I was more than hopeful this probe would have us all being reinstated to the tracker but it is extremely doubtful now.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Hi Barrall

Have you any case at all for getting your tracker back? If so, you should be included in the review. Write to KBC saying what your case is and asking them to confirm that you are being included in the Review. Then based on their reply, you can decide what to do next.

Brendan

 

[TheBarrall]

I was hoping I would, like others I made an initial complaint to KBC and they found nothing in it at the time, like others felt that I had been duped into this and confused by wording, as on my original contract offer it states variable rate (tho home annuity above) so when I signed the fixed rate, with return to variable, i thought once term had been completed I would revert back to the tracker, unfortunately found out the hard way and this was not the case (as others have wrote I think KBC have got lucky with this wording). Was hoping this review and the broker letter would resolve this however at the moment, it doesn't seem to be taken into consideration. Have any others similar to myself (dates took contract and dates fixed, just before the broker letter 7th Nov) had letters advising there account is being looked into

 

[PJDCol]

Finally got a letter from KBC to say I am part of the Central Bank tracker review. Been waiting months for a call back or some form of recognition that this is even taking place!

@TheBarrall, your case seems very similar to mine so I wonder why they would say you are not part of the review? I also signed the fixed rate document in 2006 (September) and the variable rate in my original contract is also

 

[Leighlinboy]

Doesn't seem to be any consistency , I fixed for 5 years in early 2007 and am included in the review thankfully , can't imagine my fixed form was any different to the @thebarall I also got written response back within 2/3 days of emailing KBC several weeks back which I was surprised by, so assumed once they started openly admitting they were party to the review they would be letting people know. Doesn't look to me they are in any rush to be in a position to have all the affected customers identified by September.....

 

[DamC82]

Finally got a letter from KBC to say I am part of the Central Bank tracker review. Been waiting months for a call back or some form of recognition that this is even taking place!

@TheBarrall, your case seems very similar to mine so I wonder why they would say you are not part of the review? I also signed the fixed rate document in 2006 (September) and the variable rate in my original contract is also

Is this central bank review looking for anything in particular , or is it a result of the 'flyer'.
I haven't received a letter ,but got the confirmation that my account was one which was that was part of the review , in an email whilst I was querying something else.
Will anything realistically come of this review , or will Kbc continue to get away scot-free?

 

[DamC82]

Doesn't seem to be any consistency , I fixed for 5 years in early 2007 and am included in the review thankfully , can't imagine my fixed form was any different to the @thebarall I also got written response back within 2/3 days of emailing KBC several weeks back which I was surprised by, so assumed once they started openly admitting they were party to the review they would be letting people know. Doesn't look to me they are in any rush to be in a position to have all the affected customers identified by September.....

Did you have a tracker previous to fixing in Early 2007?

 

[Leighlinboy]

Yes had the tracker prior to 5 year fixed, came off in 2012 onto "Svr" ...... I understood remit of review to be all people that were on trackers and were moved off them for one reason or another , timing may well prove be an issue in terms of the result , but wouldn't have thought in terms of inclusion in the review , put it back on them for a reason why you aren't included !

 

[DamC82]

Yes had the tracker prior to 5 year fixed, came off in 2012 onto "Svr" ...... I understood remit of review to be all people that were on trackers and were moved off them for one reason or another , timing may well prove be an issue in terms of the result , but wouldn't have thought in terms of inclusion in the review , put it back on them for a reason why you aren't included !

No we are included to my surprise as I've never had a tracker. We fixed straightaway when we drew down in Jan 07.
The 'flyer' is exactly around the period we were finalising our mortgage so going by that we should have rolled of onto tracker , but unfortunately that's not in our loan agreement , which states we roll onto prevailing variable interest rate.
Having examined all paperwork and read up plenty here I don't believe we have a snowballs chance of getting that tracker

 

[Leighlinboy]

The silence from KBC is deafening ...I went back looking for an update on Friday as hadn't heard a peep since they sent out a letter confirming i was included (I had to request ) Just said they would contact all affected Customers , and wouldnt be before September 30th .