PTSB Tracker Mortgages Vanishing Away .

Sneaky one by PTSB but no doubt the rest of the banksters are all at it :frowning:

Many people who mortgages in 2006 or 2007 got a Fixed for 1-3 years and changing to a tracker thereafter . PTSB ar e trying to gouge their customers out of them .

askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=126677

They tried it on during the fix too.

someone wisely said .

Best warn anyone you know on a fixed mortgage with a low tracker rate that PTSB are out there on the prowl trying to diddle them.

This should be reported to the regulator, as well as the press.

The regulator owns the feckin website :nin:

Brendan Burgess is the regulator! XX

is he? got a link for that?

I really hope the regulator makes the Banks take their medicine on this one,this should really be a no brainer for any Financial Regulator but given their track record,what are the odds of them dropping the ball and weaselling out in the banks favour on this one as well…

Todays Independent…
FINANCIAL Services Ombudsman Joe Meade has demanded all mortgage lenders be probed to ensure they are honouring agreements allowing people to retain their tracker mortgages.

Mr Meade has demanded the Financial Regulator carry out the probe after he found against a lender that would not allow a couple coming off a fixed-rate mortgage to move back on to a tracker as agreed.

independent.ie/business/pers … 57007.html

I know someone who was working in a call centre trying to get people to switch away from their trackers. Nothing illegal in it.

No Brendan isn’t the Regulator.
He was at one time Chairman of the Consumer Panel, but resigned.

This is very dodgy from PTSB and I think they could well be storing up grounds for a legal challenge.

If they are failing to tell people of all of their options, and people are led to opt out of the tracker
then those same people might come back later and say “We were misled”

I can see PTSB having to put them back on the trackers, plus refund any financial loss to the customer
and perhaps more.

We’re talking serious money here. Particularly for the consumers.

Don’t get excited though. The regulator isn’t exactly chomping at the bit when it comes to dishonest
banks. A few years back PTSB had a radio ad claiming they had the best rate for deposits when they
clearly didn’t.

Complaints to ASAI got nowhere, they claimed it was IFSRA’s job.
IFSRA put up a fight (in defense of the bank) and came up with some pretty crazy justifications.

In the end IFSRA gave in and told PTSB to pull the ad, but it took A LOT of pursuesion, you’d think
IFSRA was the one running the ad to see their resistance. By the time the ad was pulled the damage had
been done. No consequences for PTSB.

I’ve always felt that the bit at the end of finance ads should be changed. Where they have committed an
offence it should be tagged onto all of their ads…it should say.

PTSB is regulated by the financial regulator and has been found to be dishonest in it’s advertising
once in the past 12 months.

Or

PTSB is regulated by the financial regulator and has attempted to trick it’s customers into switching
to mortgages that were less favourable to the customer.

Never happen though. Given that the ref togs out in the banks jersey.

-Rd

Have you enough information and knowledge to say that there’s nothing illegal in it?

E.g. Were the customers fully apraised of their options.
Were they told the full implications to them of switching.
Were they given predictions about interest rates?

I dare say your friend working the call center isn’t even qualified to know if what they are doing is legal.

In any case, something can be legal but not be right. Some laws only get created or changed after consumers have been abused
by companies that stick to the letter of the law. If PTSB is trying to “trick” people into less favourable mortgages then it really
doesn’t matter whether that behaviour is legal or not. Customers need to be warned, and PTSB need to be stopped.

-Rd

If you’re a shareholder in PTSB would you feel the same way ?

Joe Meade was on Eamonn Keane today.

One of the cases he found against the banks on was where a couple were on a tracker, fixed for two years. They expected to go back to a tracker at the end of the two years. He agreed.

Puts some of the sharper practices into context (i.e. even where the bank have move to SVR in the small print, they may not be able to enforce that).

What kind of ridiculous question is that?
Of course I bloody would.

Any shareholder that thinks that dishonesty is a good policy in the current situation
is deluded.

For the record I’m not a shareholder in PTSB, but if anyone finds that BofI are up to similar
tricks let me know.

You didn’t answer my question.
Are you qualified to say that what they are doing is legal?

-Rd

Me too, anytime I hear financial ads on I always say the line at the end as X Bank is (now) regulated by the financial regulator.

I always think they should be combined with the rabodirect adds:
“X Bank is regulated by the FR, but not very much, and in a sneaky way”

Short answer,I am and I bloody well do !! :open_mouth:

Am I qualified to tell ? No. I’m not a judge. If someone rings you up and tries to get you to switch, what’s illegal about it ? provided of course they comply with whatever regs on disclosure etc ]

But I’ve been selling switching assistance software off and on for donkeys years and it’s big business. Hardly the stuff of “illegal” . But as you point out - I may be wrong.

And as a shareholder - if an entity you had shares in wasn’t doing everything possible to maximize profits - wouldn’t you want to know why ?

I love the way you let talk of complying with regs roll off the tongue.

Do you know or care what the regs are? Can the bank say anything or omit anything it likes to grow those profits?

I don’t know if the regs on investments apply to mortgages. They possibly don’t. But whether they do or not, tricking people into mortgages that cost them more is a short sighted questionable practice.

It might backfire in terms of legal cases and compensation. It might backfire in terms of PR and damage to the brand.

As a shareholder I’d want no part of it and if it continued I’d sell the shares.

Switching that’s fully transparent is fine.

-Rd

PTSB, the bank that likes to say “fuck off somewhere else so!”

daltonr said

To back up what DR is saying I refer you to primetime of a year or two ago and the selling or miss-selling of investment products to customers and secret filmimg of an old lady in a bank having some investment which was not described fully pushed on her within a certain bank who are now accused of not playing strictly by the rules re mortgages and now they would seem to be at it again.

Some of these places have short fu**ing memories but some of us on the pin dont, and also because something is not illegal does not mean its not wrong.