Bank of Ireland increase differential on tracker rates

It may or may not be of interest but the mortgage which I am dealing with is not a buy to let mortgage it is a residential mortgage held by my late brother & therefore fully within the ambit of the Ombudsman. Mortgage docs also state that it is subject to the laws on Northern Ireland - which may be slightly different from England & Wales & Scotland.

As my brother was received 4 separate mortgage quotations before opting for one I believe this to be an advised transaction & have asked the bank for sight of any & all advice given in this regard. Strangely the bank are being very reticent about providing this!

I would like to see several hundred borrowers taking BOI to County Court for breach of contract because they have not satisfied the terms of their own agreement by refusing to divulge "commercially sensitive information". We are limited by the £10,000 limit I think so we need to be aware of that. Can we not crowdfund a small claims case if our legal advisers think its a runner?

Reply to the comment left by "Paul Brindley" at "25/11/2013 - 21:55":

In response to Paul's latest comment can I point out an earlier posting of mine precisely on the subject of 'turning up the heat' on the BOI/PO joint venture - it is the BOI's weakest link in the UK

There is of course the legal route - no option but to go that way - but BOI only incorporated its business in the UK specifically to get the benefit of UK deposit protection and it did this as a direct result of adverse publicity putting the PO originated deposit base at risk.

Make no mistake, without the PO generated retail deposits BOI is dead in the water in the UK

Reply to the comment left by "Paul Brindley" at "25/11/2013 - 21:55":

I see that Paul but it puts the borrower on the back foot. Far better I think to send the letters before action setting out that the money taken by DD is unlawful and try and claim it back. They cannot take action if they are getting their money. And if we lose at CC then does not each side have to pay its own legals?

Reply to the comment left by "GHH 64" at "25/11/2013 - 22:09":

And dead in the water as a whole

Reply to the comment left by "Gary Nock" at "25/11/2013 - 22:13":

Yes, you're right about being on the back foot, but not about the legals - the judge can make an order how he / she thinks based on applications by both sides - in every case you can expect B of I to ask for massive costs, they won't employ anyone who's cheap. They'll use the threat of a large costs award as a tool for putting pressure in their opponent. In my client's case we are defending so the judge is likely to be more sympathetic to a request by us that should we lose each party should bear their own costs than if we had been instigating the action as a claimant as you guys are. Or at least that's my view. So it's a case of good and bad.

Reply to the comment left by "Paul Brindley" at "26/11/2013 - 02:44":

The way I see it is that the Bank is attacking uk borrowers' soft underbelly by imposung an increase in the small man and using the fact it would be a David v Goliath with all it's resources and fat lawyers' fees fight.

So we have to attack their soft underbelly too, and that is their reliance on Joe and Joanne Public's blind belief that they are 'investing' wisely with a reliable, trustworthy organisation when they put their money in to the Post Office. I suspect little old men and little old ladies who have had their post office account since they were toddlers, and whose average balance by the B of I's own admission is a massive £17,000, have no idea they're dealing with the B of I and not the trusted Post Office. We have to disabuse them of that ignorance. This can be done through a carefully crafted digital marketing campaign and 'real world' efforts. And right now is the time up strike - when there are things going on at the Post Office and there's hype over RBS being 'found out'. We need to go on the attack now, not in a few months time!

Reply to the comment left by "Paul Brindley" at "26/11/2013 - 03:06":

Just noticed your post about the bank being reticent to provide evidence of the advice given. You may have them here. You could complain about that advice - see my blog on this - don't forget that when many mortgages were taken up before the crunch the banks would commonly pay the lawyers' fees, putting the lawyer in a massive position of conflict against which there is really no defence - argue there's been bad advice, no advice (because the lawyers' files won't contain a good enough file note saying they'd forewarned about things such as a possibility of the SVR rising if the bank sells it's mortgage book) or just collusion, and you bring in the lawyer as a co defendant. Same with any mortgage adviser - whether the bank's internal one or external. That will slow things down if you don't pay the full mortgage they're looking for - for example because professional indemnity insurers are involved.

You need to push for an answer as you may just have found their soft underbelly in your case.

You may be able to find out if the bank was paying lawyers' fees by looking at an archived copy of the bank's website, I think through the site is archive.org. Use it, it may be of help. Archive.org does have some copies of the bank's site, I've looked at it myself but can't recall seeing anything. Another set of eyes looking may notice something I've not.

Reply to the comment left by "Paul Brindley" at "25/11/2013 - 21:55":

This is an incredibly high risk strategy, especially if BoI decide to appoint LPA receivers. For those on the edge of personal bankruptcy anyway they might consider it. For everybody else I would personally advise against it.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "26/11/2013 - 08:31":

Only if our arguments are weak, and they're not.