AIB The "prevailing rate" was the rate prevailing when we drew down the mortgage

[thedman]

No, it’s a loan on completely different terms. The original contract is no more - it was replaced in its entirety as soon as you fixed.

Again, the original contract was replaced in its entirety when you fixed - you are relying on the term of a contract that no longer exists.

But there was no new contract. No new terms. No new application. No new signatures. No lawyers. Its's the same account number. Why would it be considered a "new" loan? What are you basing this on? Does this mean every time I change the repayment date, I am getting a new loan?

 

[elacsaplau]

Am I right in saying that you now accept that is not a new loan, but an amendment to the same loan? (I ask because this is a crucial point)

and

No, it’s a loan on completely different terms. The original contract is no more - it was replaced in its entirety as soon as you fixed.

Sarenco - one question please! (In addition to those of thedman)

There could only be a new loan if the old one is terminated - agreed? Accordingly, what conditions are provided for in the original loan documentation in relation to the termination of the loan? You have to be certain of these conditions and that these conditions were satisfied in order for your statement that a new loan is in place to be justified. Are you certain?

 

[RedOnion]

Right, to throw something else into the mix.

If fixing did not create a new contract, why then are so many people relying on a clause in the 'it's not a contract' to have a contractual right to a tracker?

It's one or the other - both arguments can't be right.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

This thread has become abusive and no further light can be shone on the topic.

For future reference, please do not accuse people with whom you disagree of trolling.

Brendan