Success. Ombudsman orders AIB to restore my tracker

J

Jacky

Registered User
Messages
4
Hi, just wondering kopkidda, if you had any success with this. I am in a similar situation now. Although I was originally on a tracker before fixing for 5 years. The FSO has now asked me to consider mediation with AIB, so not sure how these things usually go.
 
That's fantastic news harvest moon. I wonder then why AIB are still refusing me. You would think that the FSO would not have rule on each case individually. Got a letter today anyway from FSO they will let me know the decision in 6-8 weeks approx. will u get money back?
 
Hi, I had posted on a different thread last year with a very similiar issue. I found out on Friday that the FSO has granted in my favour, and that AIB have been instructed to put me back on tracker and give me back the money since my fixed rate finished.

We are delighted as we were really struggling to pay the mortgage.
 
Jacky

Well done! I have moved your posts from the separate threads to one new thread to highlight it.

Would you mind summarising the case so that others may benefit.

1) Your story
2) AIB's defence
3) Your counter defence
4) The Ombudsman's ruling.

The lender has a huge advantage in that it sees many of these cases. Borrowers usually see only one and don't have any guidance to go by.
 
No problem Brendan.

I took out a tracker mortgage with AIB in 2006, and in 2007 I fixed it for 5 years as at the time interest rates were going up. TBH I just assumed I would go back on tracker when the 5 years were up. I didn't think too much about it, and I didn't ask the bank to clarify what would happen when the 5 years were up. The bank just sent me a letter saying that when the 5 years were up that the payments would
"be revised on its expiry in accordance with the rate then applicable".
I assumed that meant the applicable ECB rate.

I then went through the same process as everyone else trying to get my tracker back when the 5 years were up. I had noticed a few articles in the Sunday papers where the FSO had said that the banks should act in consumers interests, so when the bank stonewalled me I wrote to him.

They were very helpful and told me what I had to do.

My argument was that my original agreement stated that
"At the end of any fixed interest rate period, the Customer may choose between:
a further fixed interest rate period; or
conversion to a variable interest rate Mortgage loan; or
conversion to a tracker interest rate Mortgage loan."

The bank stated that as it discontinued tracker rates in October 2008 that it was not in a position to offer this rate in 2012. They argued that the Press releases informed the public that the bank was ceasing to offer tracker rates. However in the press release the bank stated that "Existing customers with Tracker mortgages are not affected". As my mortgage was not new I would have considered myself an existing customer.

The FSO stated he was satisfied that "the Complainant could not reasonably be held to have notice of the possibility that she would find herself unable to revert to a tracker rate at all, at the end of the fixed rate period"

He found that "the bank failed to take adequate steps in 2007 to alert the Complainant to the possibility that the tracker rate would not be available on expiry of the fixed term"

He then instructed the bank to immediately apply a tracker rate of ECB +0.95% and to return by cheque the difference since April 2012.

I hope this helps others in this situation. I must say the FSO were very helpful throughout this process.
 
Hi Jacky

Thanks for that. It sounds as if AIB were chancing their arm on this one.

If they told you in 2007, when you fixed, that you would be entitled to a tracker on expiry of the fixed rate, I just don't see the relevance of their subsequent press release? Even if they had worded it differently, they still couldn't take it from you.

I presume that they contested this because they know that sometimes the FSO just makes weird decisions.

Brendan
 

Definitely the bank chancing their arm. Again. And only that Jacky (1) fought it and (2) got the FSO to agree did she get back that to which she was entitled. But it's a numbers game for the bank and for every Jacky there are probably 20 who believe the bank. The Central Bank/FSO should order that banks looks at all people like Jacky and give them the correct tracker rate and repayment. Why should so many people have to take on the banks individually when it's clear as day what the banks are at.

Shame on the Central bank/FSO. And more particularly shame on AIB bank that chanced this with Jacky and that after this decision against them will do the exact same to Billy or Jack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register