No Further Redress for those who lost homes

RealDeal said:
If he told you how much you were due - is it simply the interest on the 12% or a further payment? Do you have a residual amount o/S?
Click to expand...
He couldn't tell me the breakdown but it's €38k so I'm presuming it's the 12% write down plus the interest amount. I'll probably get a clearer picture on that with the letter due. My interest rate changed quite a few times over the time I did have the mortgage so I couldn't tie down the figures using the calculator.
I have nothing outstanding as I completed Insolvency, the bank sold the house and I fought to get the residual written off after the sale.
That's the situation simplified.
 
Could the house have been saved had your mortgage been 12% less? Or was insolvency on the cards anyway?

I’m in a similar situation and am hoping the payout will reflect causal of sale. Just curious if you are in the same boat (in which case I can only expect the 12% plus interest at most)
 
Last edited:
I lost a BTL several years after exiting the fixed rate, I'm hoping to demonstrate that between what we would of saved had the 12% been deducted 3 years previously and the pension contributions I started to make the same month the bank said they wanted the property sold for loss. That there was more than enough to service the mortgage on the BTL (I was less than €200 pm short of full repayments) along with the rent as I had been doing for 5/6 years at that point. What do you think? Is this an argument that would be entertained?
 
It’s amazing to think that the Central Bank has approved a scheme that ignores the very principles that they set.
They have let customers down who need them to stand up when wrongs are done - it seems like a case that AIB are too big to be regulated
 
zxcvbnm said:
Could the house have been saved had your mortgage been 12% less? Or was insolvency on the cards anyway?

I’m in a similar situation and am hoping the payout will reflect causal of sale. Just curious if you are in the same boat (in which case I can only expect the 12% plus interest at most)
Click to expand...


Maybe not 12% less in terms of capital but had I been on the tracker rate then it would definitely have been affordable, repayments would have been nearly €400 less a month. My repayments when I started talking to the bank were at their highest in the 10 years of having the mortgage.
Insolvency only came about because a lot of other options were exhausted/ignored - pay break, shelving a portion. My arrears were less than €10k at the time so it wasn't like I had actively stopped paying.

I believe there has to be more after this...I want my credit rating restored and if I was to get another mortgage, I'd be fighting for first time buyers status.
My BDO appeal at the time included a lot more than just the redress, so this is only the beginning for me (again).

Would 12% have helped you at the time?
 
tnegun said:
I lost a BTL several years after exiting the fixed rate, I'm hoping to demonstrate that between what we would of saved had the 12% been deducted 3 years previously
Click to expand...

I would caution people here that in the vast majority of cases, houses were lost because the borrower was unable to make any reasonable payment. In most cases, where the borrower was paying a decent amount, AIB restructured the mortgage.

So, in most cases the Ombudsman will not find that the loss of the property was due to the failure to offer a tracker at the end of the fixed rate.

I have not seen any decision from the Ombudsman on a loss of ownership issue, but the only approach I think he can take, given his decision would be as follows:

The repayment was €X per month. The amount paid by the borrower was insufficiently close to this to enable AIB to offer a restructure. Had the repayment been €X - 12% X, could it have been restructured?

In numbers
Case A) The repayment due was €1,000 a month but the borrower had paid nothing at all for a year. Reducing the €1,000 by 12% to to €880 would have made no difference. The failure to offer a tracker was not causal.

Case B) The repayment was due was €1,000 a month and the borrower was consistently paying €700 a month. AIB did not offer a restructure. However, had the repayment been €880, they could have come up with a restructure,so the failure to offer a tracker was causal.
 
tnegun said:
I lost a BTL several years after exiting the fixed rate, I'm hoping to demonstrate that between what we would of saved had the 12% been deducted 3 years previously and the pension contributions I started to make the same month the bank said they wanted the property sold for loss. That there was more than enough to service the mortgage on the BTL (I was less than €200 pm short of full repayments) along with the rent as I had been doing for 5/6 years at that point. What do you think? Is this an argument that would be entertained?
Click to expand...

It's hard to know isn't it? One thing I can say on this is when I when I went to the bank with my situation, they told me maybe my dog was costing too much and to get rid of her and spend less...this was the sort of 'help' they offered at one point.
When I specifially requested interest only or tracker rate (before any of this came up), they went deaf to me.
Anything is worth trying at this point.
 
Called the helpline again today to ask specifically about further compensation. It was all very friendly and professional but the stance is these are not covered under the tracker review so those principals do not apply, no appeals panel will be setup in this regard and it will need to be a complaint to the FSPO for anything further. They could see that I had an appeal open with the BDO and did say that panel might take a different view and to wait and see. The contradictions are unreal the specifically call out Prevailing Rate under the Mortgage Tracker Review section on the AIB site more picking and choosing what suits AIB best while trumping about making things right!
 
This is a long shot but...I will be asking for more compensation due to the loss of my house.
I got payment instruction forms this week (deceased co-borrower, need proof that there is a personal representative etc) so actual payment of initial redress will be in the next couple of weeks I presume.
But, I was wondering what peoples thoughts might be in relation to timescales.
My keys went back to the bank in March 2016, at this point the investigation in to the tracker issue had started therefore would it be a valid argument to say that as my mortgage was issued between certain dates and came out of fixed rate between certain dates, the bank SHOULD have put any disputes/insolvencies/surrenders etc on hold?
I personally believe it's a valid line to take but maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree?
 
Yes but not the one with the AIB mortgage so I've to prove it was related. I believe I can do this as the initial shortfall was sub €200 per month on our BTL the bank refused to come to any alternative arrangement other than sale for loss. Applying the 12% from the date we exited fixed 3 years prior to entering arrears on the BTL mortgage would of meant not only would our AIB mortgage be approx €100-€150 per month less we'd also of had that for 36 months too. I've a lot going on but I'm drafting a complaint to AIB too regarding it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top