Well said Matthew.
is this now in dispute? They should have been offered trackers? WTAF?!
Don’t worry AIB have issued a statement to clear up any confusion:
That reads very much like if you took out a mortgage when trackers were available, but you never had a tracker, for whatever reason, you can now get one and backdate it! Happy days, like buying a lottery ticket after you know what numbers came up!
Don’t expect to our high SVRs to come down anytime soon.
Do expect much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the usual suspects about the scandalously high SVRs in Ireland compared to the rest of Europe!
I heard it myself , allegedly. However in my theoretical case i advised the person to tell the bank to go f . Without voice recording in each individual case it would be had to prove against the legal might of the banks and a supine CB/political class.
Once a bank interrupts a contract in a particular way - they will apply that interpurtation consistently across all customers. Failure to do so would result in a compliance failure.
Is there a large series of legal problems here. You legal advisers advising one sector of clientele versus another legal sector advising the other side. The banks advising people to leave tracker, as their advice was illegal to give advice to people to change to variable, and you the client would be better off, how are u!!
IT catching up with the share price story, but can’t decide if this is “shareholders lose faith in management” or “banks will have to pay off the politicians”.
Don’t forget who are AIB’s shareholders.
Where are the ‘Public Interest’ Directors?
Given how coordinated the scam was across the banks, the reluctance of the banks to address this issue, and the reluctance of the government to regard a billion euro fraud as a crime, it is looking to me like the banks were instructed by the government back in 2012/2013 to wind down their trackers in whatever way they could.
If true, who will break ranks first and spill the beans?
I have never seen my mortgage contract. I tried to reduce it fast a few times,and was told that ‘I could not do that’ as I would affect the term and the interest. I tried a few times and was allowed to reduce after the third attempt. Then I went faster with the reduction, once I knew I could, as there was a time when the repayments were about the same as the interest being charged, and I knew it would take years to reduce the lump sum and the original. Should all clients who take out a mortgage have a seperate Legal Adviser. It seems the banks have the upper hand at the time of the Mortgage Approval. Mine is over TG. It was a big struggle at times
I can’t remember if I got a copy of mine years ago but it was part of the conveyance. Do banks routinely withhold these documents? If so, the supervisor should sort them out.
Seriously that sounds like total BS. Did you guys not read that mortgage contract before you signed, and retained a copy of what you signed?
Or did you get money without signing anything?
I see my favourite politician gave another grandstanding oration today in the Seanad…looks like he’s trying to bust Youtube again!
If anyone else in Irish public life called a specific group of people *“a shower of thieving bastards” *- Travellers who burgle the elderly, for example - Ó Ríordáin would report them to the Gardai for inciting hatred and accuse them of racism. In fact, I believe he has done such a thing in the past…
Travellers don’t burgle the elderly; burglars burgle the elderly. Some burglars are Travellers, most are not.
Meanwhile ALL the banks acted together to rob people. To say that ALL the banks are a shower of bastards is fair and correct.
Has anyone seen any actual contract wording that makes it clear it is that cut and dried. AAM refers to some contracts having the wording “tracker rate then prevailing” and others “on expiry of the fixed term you will be offered a tracker rate of ECB + 1%” for PTSB.
askaboutmoney.com/threads/p … ed.172659/
I seem to remember that when PTSB were first ruled against they appealed it to the High Court. That suggests there was at least some ambiguity involved. The former wording above is a blank cheque for the banks anyway. There’s nothing to stop them saying the current prevailing rate is ECB +7% or some other number that would make the SVR the more attractive option. If people who had that wording are now getting put back on trackers at ECB+1% then I can understand why the banks would appeal it. On the other hand people who were offered a defined tracker rate and didn’t receive it are fully deserving of compensation. But the chatter on AAM seems to suggest that for most PTSB customers the wording was: “At the end of the fixed rate period you may exercise an option to move to the Standard Variable Rate or to a Tracker Mortgage Rate. If a Tracker Mortgage Rate is chosen the loan will become a Tracker Mortgage Loan and the rate applicable will be the rate appropriate to the balance outstanding on the loan at the time of expiry of the fixed rate period and as may be varied in accordance with variations to the ECB rate.”
Of course I saw it and signed it but that was 20 years ago and I think my copy may have been kept by my solicitor but now, like Maryocarrol, I’m mortgage free ( ). The issue is why customers would allow the banks to deny them trackers in breach of their mortgage contract. If everyone gets a copy of their mortgage, why are the banks getting away with this? Maybe that should be the title of this whole thread.
I have been through this with both PTSB & AIB. The legal advice I received at the time was that the bank could shift me off a tracker. I fought my courner and hung on but it was at the banks discretion.
Props for fighting the banks.
I think this is true of the vast majority of tracker cases - the fine print gives discretion to the banks and now, after years of delay, the politicians are turning the thumb-screws on them.
Of course, trackers should never have been offered in the first place - sooner or later they were going to become loss-makers.
John McGuinness will be waiting a long time before Mario turns up at his Committee - Mrs. Draghi’s boy isn’t running QE to benefit Irish retail borrowers.