KBC Summary of the KBC Cohorts

T

Trustnobody

Registered User
Messages
13
Hi all, I am new to posting here but have been following these threads for a few months. Congrats to all who have got their cases over the line. For those who are still battling with KBC and will at this stage probably end up in front of the ombudsman, would it be useful to start some information gathering? People may not be aware of all the issues that are specific to KBC that might help their case. There are lots of issues touched on in various threads which require clarity and plenty of red herrings. One borrower’s evidence might assist another borrower on what to look for in their own data access requests and their own paperwork.


From the posts here and the CBI it appears that the following borrowers have been redressed and compensated by KBC


  1. Those with conditions in their loan offer that specifically state that the rate will track the ECB rate but were moved off this rate at some stage

  2. PDH borrowers who started on fixed rates with loan applications between November 2006 and February 2008 “the flyer cohort” . Am i correct that there was no condition in these loan offers that identified the applicable rate as a rate above the ECB rate ie a tracker rate? They all referred to a fixed rate that would roll to a “prevailing rate” at the end of the fixed rate period. It appears that KBC have picked an arbitrary cut off date for this cohort and people with exactly the same wording in their loan offers have not been redressed simply because they fall outside this date.

  3. Anyone else?
Issues that might help and require clarification:

  1. There appears to be loan offers issued between 2005 and 2008 that started on fixed rates or discounted rates that were to roll on to a prevailing rate. The 650 cohort who have been restored( if I am correct as to the conditions in their loan offers) had this same wording in their loan offers. People with exactly the same wording in their loan offers have not been restored due to an arbitrary cut off date.So the issues here : KBC say flyer only relates to new business within certain dates and only to PDH . The loan offers for those deemed not impacted because they are outside those dates, or have a buy to let have the same wording as those impacted .
  2. Did KBC describe Tracker rates as “ Tracker variable rates” and interchangeably “variable rates” throughout the period 2005 - 2007 ? Does anyone have correspondence , broker communications to evidence this? I have loans that are being charged at a tracker rate from day one and the definition of the rate is exactly the same as in the loans where I am being charged SVR following a discounted period. On the front of the all my loan offers ( SVR and Tracker) in the schedule the rate is described as “ variable” Nowhere in a loan offer where I am being charged a tracker rate is “tracker”/ rate tracking the ECB rate mentioned.
  3. Did KBC have any other products on offer in 2005 - 2008 other than fixed rates, discounted rates and tracker rates. Did they have an SVR product at all at this time ? If they did what percentage of products issued in 2005 - 2007 were SVR for PDH and residential buy to lets? Anecdotally brokers are saying all products from KBC at this time were trackers . If there were SVR products did the loan offers differ ? How was the rate defined ? If a loan was to roll onto an SVR after a fixed rate period , did the loan offer state this?
  4. For anyone that was on an initial discounted rate, did they receive letters in 2006 notifying a rate increase following a rise in the ECB rate. Were these rises in the ECB rate passed on to SVR customers in this period and were they passed on in full. Does anyone have details of when KBC passed rate rises onto SVR customers in 2006 - 2008. This information could distinguish borrowers on a discounted rate (linked to a tracker) from a discounted SVR hence it should have rolled to a tracker not a SVR
  5. Has there been any definitive decision on the “ prevailing rate “ . Does it relate to when the loan was applied for / drawn down or when the fixed/discounted rate came to an end. Can KBC argue against the ambiguity of how “ prevailing rate” is defined? Have KBC evidenced that the SVR was the prevailing rate for the loans that rolled on to SVR as opposed to tracker rate ?
  6. Does anyone have broker/ bank communications stating that they would roll on to a tracker at the end of their fixed rate period, even outside official loan offers/ paperwork
  7. Has anyone seen the range of handbooks issued from 2005 - 2008?

These are just some of the questions I am trying to answer, many not relevant to my own case but from reading the threads might be relevant to others. If anyone can add to/ clarify these issues please do. My own case is with PK and will proceed to the ombudsman.
 
Trustnobody

That is brilliant. I have made a few efforts to understand the issue, and every attempt was taken off thread by red herrings. I just gave up.

I have just spend some time reading through the KBC threads trying to clarify some of the issues and they are all over the place. Impossible to follow.

I don't know who has got back trackers and who has not.

I have started a separate thread for people who got back their trackers to document their case history.
I got tracker redress from KBC

It will probably go quickly off topic with people complaining about their own failure to get a tracker but we will give it a shot.

Brendan
 
Last edited:
Trustnobody said:
PDH borrowers who started on fixed rates with loan applications between November 2006 and February 2008 “the flyer cohort” . Am i correct that there was no condition in these loan offers that identified the applicable rate as a rate above the ECB rate ie a tracker rate? They all referred to a fixed rate that would roll to a “prevailing rate” at the end of the fixed rate period. It appears that KBC have picked an arbitrary cut off date for this cohort and people with exactly the same wording in their loan offers have not been redressed simply because they fall outside this date.
Click to expand...

The flyer cohort could merit in a separate thread in itself as it's probably the one where a concerted action might yield best results.

Is the following correct?

To qualify for inclusion in the flyer cohort, i.e. for KBC to deem you impacted, you must meet the following conditions:
1) You must have applied for your mortgage through a broker
and
2) You must have applied during November 2006 and February 2008
and
3) You must have drawn down by ....
and
4) You must have the wording in your contract (or handbook?) saying you would roll off onto the prevailing rate.
 
Brendan , this is what KBC say about this cohort

  • c. 650 PDH (Private Dwelling Home) mortgage accounts are now also identified as impacted. These related to new mortgage applications in the period November 2006 to February 2008 that drew down their mortgage on a fixed rate with a roll off to a standard variable rate. While these customers were never on a tracker rate, KBC has decided to offer these PDH customers a tracker rate product if the account is still open.
In later statements they tied the cut off dates into the loan application date
Mr. Wim Verbraeken

We allow for the normal terms of the delay between a draw-down date and the application date. That is why we take into account the application date rather than the draw-down date. We believe that was the influencing factor. That was the moment that customers would have made their choice and would have been led by the information in the leaflet.

So your 1 and 2 above are correct I think
No 3 doesn't appear to be relevant

Re no 4
You must have the wording in your contract (or handbook?) saying you would roll off onto the prevailing rate.

I don't think this wording was a pre requisite to being part of this cohort it just happened to be the wording in their loan offers. This wording however is something that I think is relevant to many people on here . This seems to be the wording in many loan offers from 2005 to 2008. Fixed rate/ discounted rate rolling on to the prevailing rate however if you aren't within the flyer dates you are not impacted

KBC capitulated on this cohort on the basis that people signed up based on a promise in a flyer . The question arises what product were they selling outside the flyer dates . If there was a change in product why did the paperwork not change . Where is the communication that the product was changing. To clarify I think the fact that the wording is the same is important.

An additional point: if the tracker rate was the prevailing rate for the flyer cohort how was it not the prevailing rate for those borrowers with the exact same wording during the same period
 
Last edited:
On the Variable Rate argument. I had this in my original ombudsman case back in 2012 and it was rejected.

Now with a clearer head (and back on tracker as I was originally on a tracker and then fixed - so the rose tinted glass are gone) I see what they did.

All changeable rates were call "Variable Rates" - sometimes they were called Standard variable rates, other times they were called Homeloan Variable Rates. I don't think the word "tracker" was used in any of the homeloan documents of KBC. However in the special conditions attached it stated the rate was a variable rate which would not exceed xx% above the ecb REFI rate for the life of the laon.

I'll get the exact wording and edit over the next couple of days if its different.

So KBC's argument for those without the specific margin over ECB detailed somewhere in some communication, is that the default variable rate applies and this is the standard variable rate which has been around for many many years.
 
Peemac,
If KBC could prove that standard variable rate was been used in the period 2005 to 2008 as product , ie list of what the rates were and prove of them, corresponds maybe with there clients....
Or news paper documents ....
But they can't !!!!
Maybe you can ?
 
Peemac: So KBC's argument for those without the specific margin over ECB detailed somewhere in some communication, is that the default variable rate applies and this is the standard variable rate which has been around for many many years.[/QUOTE]



Thanks Peemac, your case represents the cohort that had the "tracker" wording in their contracts ( outrageous that these cases resisted for so long and delighted for you that you succeeded)
However the flyer cohort as far as I know did not have any wording specifying a margin above the ecb rate. As I understand it their offers specified a fixed rate to roll to prevailing rate. So just to tease that out.....

Contractually the flyer cohort were to roll to the prevailing rate. KBC have now restored them to trackers

So does it follow that that the prevailing rate was a tracker rate ? If so, that alone provides account holders with the same wording in the same period with a valid argument .

Secondly
By linking this cohort to the loan application date it is arguable that KBC are conceding that the prevailing rate at the time of the loan application is the relevant rate

If that’s the case surely this prevailing rate should apply to all those accounts with the same wording where loan applications pre-dated the tracker product being pulled in 2008?
Presumably KBC cant have two prevailing rates at one time for the same type of products and I havent heard them argue that.

Thirdly and separately
Were there any SVR products during that period , have KBC evidenced this. I would like to see the stats on this , the percentage of products for residential and buy to lets that were SVR . If there weren't , it can't be the default rate . The products regardless of fixing at the outset were tracker products
 
peemac said:
So KBC's argument for those without the specific margin over ECB detailed somewhere in some communication, is that the default variable rate applies and this is the standard variable rate which has been around for many many years.
Click to expand...

What they have said in many contracts that I have seen is that the "prevailing" rate applies after a fixed period. There is no mention anywhere in those contracts that I have seen of an SVR, no mention whatsoever. At best there is considerable ambiguity in the wording of contracts and as I've said before , where contracts are unclear in their terms it's the ombudsman or the courts that will be the ultimate arbiter.
 
Trustnobody said:
Did KBC have any other products on offer in 2005 - 2008 other than fixed rates, discounted rates and tracker rates. Did they have an SVR product at all at this time ?
Click to expand...

I have seen one contract from 2006 where the rate was a " flexi annuity rate" with the borrower going on a fixed rate for 3 years after which the "prevailing variable rate" would apply. After the 3 years the borrower was put on a SVR. There is no reference anywhere in the contract to a SVR , or indeed to a tracker. The only rates referenced in this particular contract are flexi annuity rate, fixed rate and prevailing variable rate. The borrower in this case has been told by KBC that she is not impacted but after the final report is published by the Central Bank in to the tracker scandal she is bringing her case to the FSPO.
 
demoivre said:
I have seen one contract from 2006 where the rate was a " flexi annuity rate" with the borrower going on a fixed rate for 3 years after which the "prevailing variable rate" would apply. After the 3 years the borrower was put on a SVR. There is no reference anywhere in the contract to a SVR , or indeed to a tracker. The only rates referenced in this particular contract are flexi annuity rate, fixed rate and prevailing variable rate. The borrower in this case has been told by KBC that she is not impacted but after the final report is published by the Central Bank in to the tracker scandal she is bringing her case to the FSPO.
Click to expand...
The wording is the "prevailing home loan variable rate" or similar. Not just "prevailing rate".

I think for any argument for a tracker you must show somewhere where a specific percentage over the ecb rate is mentioned. Whether that is in a flyer or in a contract or in a letter.

Remember, no contract has the word "tracker" either. They were all variable rates with the condition attached in an appendix that such variable rate would be xx% above the european refi rate. And even then, the % above varied from 0.75% to 1.5% depending on many variables including your own ability to haggle.
 
peemac said:
The wording is the "prevailing home loan variable rate" or similar. Not just "prevailing rate".
Click to expand...

Correct, the reference in the contracts I have seen is to the " prevailing variable rate", as i mentioned in post #10 above, and what I should have specified in post #9 above. The wording is critically important as I know too well !
 
@peemac
That’s not true my contract and many others started on a fixed and the wording is,
At the expiry of the fixed rate period the lenders prevailing variable rate will apply and doesn’t explain that rate anywhere.
 
Last edited:
peemac said:
I think for any argument for a tracker you must show somewhere where a specific percentage over the ecb rate is mentioned.
Click to expand...

Hi peemac

Two lenders -AIB and ptsb - had contracts which said "at the end of the fixed rate, you will have a choice of... the then prevailing/current tracker rate" So these borrowers did not have a specific rate mentioned although they were entitled to have a tracker rate offered to them.

Brendan
 
I think this might not be as straightforward as you suggest Peemac. Many who have been redressed had contracts stating they would roll to the prevailing rate with no mention of margin above the ECB rate . So in the same period some people have been redressed and some not. if the prevailing rate is tracker for some it is surely tracker for all..... also worth remembering here that Trackers were referred to by KBC as variable rates / tracker variables / etc.
 
Gimmestrength said:
if the prevailing rate is tracker for some it is surely tracker for all
Click to expand...

The AIB terms and conditions said "prevailing tracker rate"
The ptsb terms and conditions said "then current tracker rate"

KBC said something like "prevailing variable rate" but made no mention of trackers.

So clearly AIB and ptsb were referring to trackers so that is very different.

You will find it hard to convince a court or the Ombudsman that "prevailing variable rate" means a tracker.

Brendan
 
Yes Brendan but KBC have returned trackers to people with no mention of trackers in their contracts . They have returned trackers where the contract said fixed rate to roll to "prevailing rate" . Therefore the prevailing rate must have been a tracker rate ?
 
Darn40 said:
@peemac
That’s not true my contract and many others started on a fixed and the wording is,
At the expiry of the fixed rate period the lenders prevailing variable rate will apply and doesn’t explain that rate anywhere.
Click to expand...

HI Darn40 were you returned to a tracker on the account that had that wording?
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Hi peemac

Two lenders -AIB and ptsb - had contracts which said "at the end of the fixed rate, you will have a choice of... the then prevailing/current tracker rate" So these borrowers did not have a specific rate mentioned although they were entitled to have a tracker rate offered to them.

Brendan
Click to expand...
Yep, but as this was a specific kbc thread, my comments were specific to kbc and how they worded their contracts.

I don't think that they used the word "tracker" in any contract preferring to use "variable rate x% above refi"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top