Bank of Ireland increase differential on tracker rates

Bank of Ireland increase differential on tracker rates

10:32 AM, 28th February 2013, About 12 years ago 1862

Text Size

The story of the Bank of Ireland decision to increase to the differential (interest rate margin) on  tracker mortgages started on this forum when a professional landlord contacted Property118 within minutes of a letter from Bank of Ireland landing on his door mat. What ensued was outrage from landlords and affected residential mortgage borrowers. The story was quickly picked up by the National Media as it wasn’t just the 13,500 affected borrowers who were worried.

Will this set a precedent for other mortgage lenders to follow?

Property118 reacted by using funds donated to The GOOD Landlords Campaign to underwrite the cost of a barristers opinion on the legality of the Bank of Ireland’s actions. The remainder of this thread,one of the most read and most commented threads of all time on Property118, continues to tell the story as it unfolds.

If you want to skip the story and cut to the chase simply CLICK HERE

Of the 13,500 affected borrowers, 1,200 have had the decision reversed by Bank of Ireland. With additional support and pressure we believe all affected borrowers can and will see justice done.

___________________________________________

Lee, a professional Landlord asks, “help! I have just received a letter from the Bank of Ireland stating they want to increase the differential on my tracker rates.

I have 12 mortgages with the Bank of Ireland previously Bristol and West. I have been on a base rate tracker of 1.75% above base, but now Bank of Ireland are using some fine print claiming they have to recapitalise and saying the ‘new differential will be 4.49%.

How can I fight back?”

The original policy wording seems to be:

6 INTEREST

Charging interest at a tracker rate

(j) Unless we change the differential (if any) under condition 6 (n), we will not change the tracker rate unless the base rate changes.

(m) in condition 6 (n):
– a “positive differential” means a percentage which we add to the base rate to arrive at the tracker rate; and a “negative differential” means a percentage which we subtract from the base rate to arrive at the tracker rate.

(n) We may reduce a positive differential or increase a negative differential at our discretion by giving you not less than seven days written notice. This means that we can change the differential in a way that is favourable to you.

The above seems to indicate that they can reduce the rate in my favour, but not give them the right to increase it. Am I correct?


Share This Article


Comments

Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

9:49 AM, 1st February 2014, About 11 years ago

Twitter users, please re-tweet the following ...


.

Darrell G

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

11:58 AM, 2nd February 2014, About 11 years ago

Hi Mark,

Got the email off Justin last week which looks promising. Can you remind me & all the others out there what the benefit is to joining the class action & not just sitting on the fence? Surly everyone will benefit (13500 borrowers) if the court overturns the BoI rate rise, Therefore why should anyone join & pay for the class action in the first instance?

For the record, Im in.

DG

Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

12:12 PM, 2nd February 2014, About 11 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Darrell G" at "02/02/2014 - 11:58":

It costs thousands to fight a case alone, at least 5, possible six fugures.

Whether we proceed to Court or other alternative remedies, the ruling will only apply to named borrowers.

A Court ruling is public knowledge but other legal remedies are not.

A win in Court would be beneficial to people who are not party to the initial action in that costs of ATE insurance to protect against an adverse costs order would tumble. HOWEVER, they would still need to pay for ATE insurance and legal costs to fight their case so involvement in the initial group action will be a considerably more cost effective option due to costs being shared across a large number of affected borrowers 🙂
.

Darrell G

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

12:17 PM, 2nd February 2014, About 11 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "02/02/2014 - 12:12":

Thanks Mark,

That makes it very clear & perfect sense that everyone should sign up & reduce the overall costs per person.

Cheers DG

Lucy McKenna

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

12:56 PM, 2nd February 2014, About 11 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "02/02/2014 - 12:12":

Hi Mark, Darrell, I never see mention of this and if it is true it would be a great "selling point" to prospective joiners. Can you please advise.

I have seen that compensation awarded by courts in these sort of cases can be 1-11/2 times what the company are charging extra, times the number of years remaining on the mortgage.

I saw that 118 thought it could be 30 to 40 (per cent of the loan I think it was)
These are considerable figures if true and for such a little outlay

Also if the BOI lost the case could the judge award costs against them and our fees be refunded.

Compensation would be a bonus, but a big bonus. Just stopping paying the increase would be great.

Please feel free to tell me if I am talking rubbish!

Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

13:05 PM, 2nd February 2014, About 11 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "LS " at "02/02/2014 - 12:56":

I am not aware of this, can you quote details please?

Since I first started talking about compensation I have been corrected by our legal team and posted a correction.

The increase could represent 30% to 40% of the total value of the debt besed on the term of the loan and it running full term. However, this will not be paid up front, that was the basis of my misunderstanding.

The basis of our claim will be for a reversal of overpayments and enforcement of contract conditions going forwards. We will be able to claim a percentage of our legal fees as compensation if we win but we will not be able to claim for the ATE insurance premium due to a change in the law in the Spring of 2013. That's another reason why it is so important to fight as a large group as opposed to fighting as individuals, i.e. the costs of the ATE insurance.
.

Lucy McKenna

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

18:03 PM, 2nd February 2014, About 11 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "02/02/2014 - 13:05":

Thanks, i am still looking for my quote, unfortunately i didn't book mark it.

Steven Badger

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

18:35 PM, 2nd February 2014, About 11 years ago

Mark

I'm interested in remaining with the class action for the next stage but have a couple of questions. Can you please advise:

The maximum cost per person to get a final verdict.
The hourly rate The Law Department are charging for the proposed work.

Many thanks

Steve

Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

18:58 PM, 2nd February 2014, About 11 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Steven Badger" at "02/02/2014 - 18:35":

Hi Steven

Q1) That's virtually impossible to answer, there are too many variables, e.g reasons for appeals etc. If we lose the first court case I think we are dead in the water though because ARE insurance for appeal with be virtually impossible to obtain. If we win and BoI appeal then our chances of being able to fund ATE will be far greater.

Q2) I will find out for you. Their costs are only a fraction of the total though. Court costs, ATE insurance, barristers and QC's cost are far greater than fees charged by The Law Department.
.

Steven Badger

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

19:19 PM, 2nd February 2014, About 11 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "02/02/2014 - 18:58":

Thanks Mark

I am a supporter, but am concerned about signing up to something if it is virtually impossible for anyone to advise me on the maximum liability I am signing up for.

What I don't want and can't afford is for follow-on requests for another £1,000, then another, then another. As I think Baggers said, The Law Department originally asked for £100, but then after add-ons, we all ended up having to pay closer to £200. Doesn't fill me with confidence.

I don't feel I got much assurance from the email I got from The Law Department so any assurance you can provide would be a big help.

Steve

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership

or

Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Tax Planning Book Now