Gordon Gekko
Registered User
- Messages
- 7,846
Yes, which they have been heretofore.
Rejected purely on switching frequency
- Thread starter Lightbulb
- Start date
- Status
So what?
A lender is under no obligation to lend money to anybody, is under no obligation to offer a cash back arrangement and is under no obligation to leave an offer open for six months.
But if somebody avails of that freely made offer, the lender can hardly complain. They certainly haven’t been deceived in any way.
Taking your points in order -
1) Can you explain why you are saying the information supplied to banks C, D and E must be incorrect? In what respect is it incorrect?
2) Same point.
3). You seem to be suggesting that multiple switches will only work if a solicitor is prepared to give an undertaking that they know they cannot honour. Frankly, no sane solicitor would risk their livelihood over such a trivial matter. From a solicitor’s perspective, dealing with multiple switches is messy but it’s certainly do-able. It certainly doesn’t mean that the solicitor is on the inside of some kind of con job, which seems to be your implication.
4). Again, so what? The borrower is simply taking the lender up on their offer. What’s wrong with that?
You keep saying that the borrower is deceiving the lender by engaging in multiple switches. They’re not - they are simply taking up the lenders on their respective offers.
And they are to be commended for doing so - inertia is a banker’s best friend.
Finally, I am most certainly not questioning your morals and I’ve no idea why you would think otherwise.
I said to a reasonably large practice of solicitors that I was thinking of doing a multi-switch (including holding on to deeds that they've undertaken to return to say the second of three banks in a switching process) and they said they wouldn't as it was "illegal". They were happy to do it in sequence (rather than parallel) though, where e.g. the third bank in the sequence knows they're taking on the mortgage from the second (rather than first) bank in the sequence. I'm not sure how deeply they had looked into the "illegality" but I guess it's at least a grey area.
Their answers sort of made sense to me, as I can't see anything wrong with taking multiple cashbacks (if the lenders will give them), as long as nobody's hiding things.
For the parallel multiswitches, is it that a solicitor would need to be insane, or just be more willing to sail close to the wind...
Look at this another way, the banks that offer cash back incentives are exploiting Irish consumers. They know they are offering a little sweetener up front to claim a larger share of business than their competition who treat their existing customers with a lot more respect. They end up trapping many people whose financial circumstances change on artificially high interest rates, refusing them access to lower rates they offer new customers.
Brendan and others have campaigned for a long time to try and stop that practice, but the lenders and regulator are not interested.
With that, I see nothing wrong with people availing of cash backs and switch multiple times. It seems this is the only way the cash-back lenders might be incentivised to start competing on rates alone saving us all a few quid.
Consumers doing this are not in any way failing in their disclosure requirements, the lenders' forms are very specific in what they want to see, they simply do not ask about switching intentions.
Brendan and others have campaigned for a long time to try and stop that practice, but the lenders and regulator are not interested.
With that, I see nothing wrong with people availing of cash backs and switch multiple times. It seems this is the only way the cash-back lenders might be incentivised to start competing on rates alone saving us all a few quid.
Consumers doing this are not in any way failing in their disclosure requirements, the lenders' forms are very specific in what they want to see, they simply do not ask about switching intentions.
Steven Barrett
Registered User
- Messages
- 5,331
Oh absolutely, I should have made that clear. The lenders are operating a business, and not a public service. So long as they comply with the discrimination legislation, they should be free to choose the customers they want.
Gordon Gekko
Registered User
- Messages
- 7,846
There’s probably an element of playing the odds to this as well.
They know that a small number of people might go to the trouble of doing this, but most people won’t.
I mean, it was/is free money, yet hardly anyone did it.
Far more PTSB customers were being rogered rather than doing the rogering.
They know that a small number of people might go to the trouble of doing this, but most people won’t.
I mean, it was/is free money, yet hardly anyone did it.
Far more PTSB customers were being rogered rather than doing the rogering.
andrew2000ad
Registered User
- Messages
- 21
I'm assuming Lightbulb has availed of cashback from PTSB within the last 5 years?
If not... I'd be a bit worried at what that means.
Assuming Lightbulb has temporarily burned a bridge with PTSB for a short number of years, that seems like the sort of risk that I at least understood from reading the multiple cashback switcher threads here.
If PTSB is observing Lightbulbs interactions with other banks and sizing up Lighbulb as an awkward customer, I'd start to worry about taking advantage of say breaking out of a Fixed term early to avail of better rates.
I would assume breaking a fixed rate early say with AIB to switch to Avant won't blacklist me from returning to AIB in 5 years, but now I'm not so sure. That would be annoying if AIB has the best rates, but even more annoying If multiple other banks denied me similarly.
There's not a whole lot of competitive mortgage providers at any one time, so it wouldn't take many to start denying customers to have a chilling effect.
If not... I'd be a bit worried at what that means.
Assuming Lightbulb has temporarily burned a bridge with PTSB for a short number of years, that seems like the sort of risk that I at least understood from reading the multiple cashback switcher threads here.
If PTSB is observing Lightbulbs interactions with other banks and sizing up Lighbulb as an awkward customer, I'd start to worry about taking advantage of say breaking out of a Fixed term early to avail of better rates.
I would assume breaking a fixed rate early say with AIB to switch to Avant won't blacklist me from returning to AIB in 5 years, but now I'm not so sure. That would be annoying if AIB has the best rates, but even more annoying If multiple other banks denied me similarly.
There's not a whole lot of competitive mortgage providers at any one time, so it wouldn't take many to start denying customers to have a chilling effect.
Exactly my point, the whole 'multiple switches in 6 months' frenzy that was promoted here was solely based and indeed only worked if the mortgagee and solicitor hid things.
And of course, nor do I .
You know, I know and the dogs on the street know, there is no such thing.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,766
You raise a few interesting points.
1) If you plan to do multiple switches you should make sure to end up with Avant or AIB or one of the lenders which has lower rates rather than cashback.
2) PTSB, as a cash back bank, does not want to take on someone who will switch again soon. It will cost them a lot.
3) AIB is not really a cash back bank. They give you €2,000 to switch which is a lot less than the €9k you would get from ptsb on a €300k mortgage. So AIB should be glad to get your business even if you have switched from them before.
4) No one can say which lender will be cheapest in 5 years, but I suspect that Avant's business model is such that they are likely to be competitive.
Brendan
You have made that accusation repeatedly without telling us what information the borrower or solicitor is hiding.
Unless you answer that question, all further discussion is pointless.
Dear, oh dear! I am so tired of answering that question.
Have you read ANY of the posts ?
If so, it begs the question, do you understand how it works?
It is as clear as the nose on your face EXACTLY what information is being withheld on subsequent switches within the 6 month stratagem.
Well, it shouldn’t be difficult for you to tell us so.
What information EXACTLY is requested by a lender and not disclosed by the borrower in applying for the loan?
@Sarenco
No, I'm am not going through it again.........
There are many occurrences of withheld information and false promises (undertakings) within the 'multiple switches in 6 month scheme'.
Both parties to a contract are expected to act with 'utmost good faith' and precious little of that is shown by the exploiters using this plan.
"there's none so blind as those who will not see."
Cf. mid 14th‐cent.
No, I'm am not going through it again.........
There are many occurrences of withheld information and false promises (undertakings) within the 'multiple switches in 6 month scheme'.
Both parties to a contract are expected to act with 'utmost good faith' and precious little of that is shown by the exploiters using this plan.
"there's none so blind as those who will not see."
Cf. mid 14th‐cent.
Last edited:
What do you mean “again”!
You have repeatedly refused to answer that very simple question while continuing to insist that multiple switchers are deceiving lenders.
They aren’t deceiving anybody and your original claim is therefore total fantasy.
I am sorry but that is complete rubbish.
I have answered it 'ad nausea'.
Yet again, you are twisting what I say!!
I have repeatedly stated that I have no problem with multiple switchers !!
What I do have a problem with is the subterfuge and duplicity employed with the 6 month scheme.
If you can/will not see how this plan is far from transparent and all above board then I can do no more.
- Status