Bank of Ireland increase differential on tracker rates

Hello all

I apologise for taking a little more time to respond yesterdays comments than would normally be the case but the deadline to raise the Judicial Review funding was yesterday and I needed to be certain about where we stand.

I am sorry to report that we achieved less than 20% of the required funding to progress an application for a Judicial Review and the window of opportunity to do so has now closed in respect of the test case we had in mind.

I spoke to Mark Smith on Thursday before he and Carla went abroad for 10 days for a holiday to discuss where we go from here. At that time it seemed that a refund to all contributors was the only option.

However, there may be a back door opportunity left available. Mark and Carla are going to give this some thought whilst they are away. It may well be that a new proposal is made. Those who do want a refund will of course be entitled to one, but please give it a few weeks for the alternatives to be considered.

It transpires that Mark Smith has been contacted by two members who are now facing repossession hearings on the grounds that they have not been paying the rate hike. They have been paying BoI only the amount they believe is due. One of these borrowers is unable to pay off what BoI now deem to be arrears so a possession hearing is inevitable and papers have already been served. This could be the back door opportunity we have been looking for. If this borrower could be funded to contest the repossession there is a possibility that we could end up with a ruling that is in everybody's favour if the Courts decide to dismiss the BoI application on the grounds of the rate increase not being lawful.

So in summary, we have failed to raise enough money to apply for a Judicial Review and that window of opportunity is closed. In a few weeks time, those of you who have paid money into BARCO will be offered a refund. You may also be given an option to forfeit your refund in order to finance a defence against a BoI repossession which could lead to the creation of the case law we need. If this transpires there will obviously be a quid pro-quo arrangement for those of you who leave your money in to finance the legal work required to contest the repossession, i.e. future legal representation and advice. However, the detail of how that could work in practice has yet to be considered by Mark Smith.

I'm sorry this isn't the news that any of us were wanting but there is still some hope.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "16/05/2015 - 10:30":

Hi Mark,
I am willing to wait and leave my £1000 in the fund until we get further advice from Mark and Carla.
What has (and will be) last by letting the 'BANKSTERS' BofI get away with this breach of contract is a lot more than £1000...

Mark, am I right in thinking that Paul Bridndley has already instigated a court case for one of his clients on similar grounds. I can't remember the detail but I believe the BOI didn't pursue his client for the reason that if he won in court it would set a precedent, so they simply let him get away with it and he just continues to pay the lesser amount. I guess if they do the same again there would once again be no court case. Everyone could just follow suit but it takes a brave person to take the risk of repossession of their property.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "16/05/2015 - 10:30":

Mark, as you are aware I saw the B of I off for a client in exactly the same situation.

Reply to the comment left by "Paul Brindley" at "17/05/2015 - 00:14":

Perhaps I should add that I will not share my skill, knowledge or the huge amount of work I've done with anyone here and will only share with the people who are subject to the repossession and with a confidentiality agreement in place and with them having made a very significant payment up front to me.

The alternative is for them to go into the action not really knowing what arguments and evidence to put forward - I've made it quite clear in the past that I strongly believe an alternative, less legalistic, more forensic accountant type, approach may be more effective. In fact I'm sure that is the case having seen off exactly this same situation. I know that this sounds blunt, but I'm in business, I am not a charity, I'm already very busy helping fee paying clients, my time is very precious to me and if repo proceedings are imminent, these guys really do not have the time to try to source the work I've done elsewhere - and that's if they could find the right buttons to press. And I have those buttons. Anyway, if they want my support, they can find and email me, but they must come prepared to pay for the support they get. It looks to me like this whole situation has got to the end of the road, I'll not be following the posts / updates going forward - I am sure a few comments might be made about what people might argue is my 'mercenary approach' but I'm not interested in listening to them.

Might or might not hear from anyone - either way is fine.

Reply to the comment left by "Paul Brindley" at "17/05/2015 - 00:41":

“Life is an echo. What you send out, comes back. What you sow, you reap. What you give, you get. What you see in others, exists in you.”
—Zig Ziglar (1926-2012)

“If you have not often felt the joy of doing a kind act, you have neglected much, and most of all yourself.”
—A. Neilen

“We should give as we would receive: cheerfully, quickly, and without hesitation; for there is no grace in a benefit that sticks to the fingers.”
—Seneca (4 BCE-65 CE)

“The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others.”
—Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

“The purpose of human life is to serve and to show compassion and the will to help others.”
—Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965)

Hi Paul,

I understand what you're saying. You're a professional insolvency practitioner and qualified accountant. Your time is worth money and professional advice is not given for free nor should it be expected. I am also an accountant and know the pain of those exams.

However, in my opinion it is not in your professional interest for people to support members facing repossession to challenge the rate hike. It is far more lucrative for you to represent clients individually. Also, BOI may have backed down for your client as they didn't want to set a precedent but if this goes to court with support from 118 members and the court decision is not favourable it will make it more difficult for you and your clients.

I do understand though that members should not expect your services for free, you're running a business .

Reply to the comment left by "Black Panther" at "17/05/2015 - 12:28":

Panther, I suppose you give your tenants free use of your properties?

Sadly, I agree with the comment posted. I think we may have reached the end of the road with this. All the old faithfuls seem to have disappeared. Months and months ago I thought it would have been a good idea for us to contact Paul collectively. I am sure many months ago we could have raised enough funds to properly meet Paul's perfectly justified fees. Reading between the lines I thought he had a strategy that would work but for some reason I felt too "shy" to propose this, it seemed I was saying we had no confidence in the lawyer we were with at the time. Luckily I had other options and simply bailed out of the BOI instead. Courts will only look at facts but perhaps they will have little sympathy for people who are in difficulty at the moment. For me the BOI raised the interest rate but it was still, even with the increase, much less than when the mortgage was taken out, the only time I would have felt it would have been when the rate reached my initial rate plus the extra. Hopefully by then the rent would have increased enough to absorb the extra cost, as it seems interest rates are moving very slowly. The person I feel sorry for is Tricia who has been a constant champion for the cause, I applaud you for this.

I am pleased to leave our £1000 in the fund pending further advice from Mark and Carla.
Did anyone ever try taking BoI to small claims court for the overcharging on their mortgage ?
I've never received a reply to our complaint to the FOS in May 2013 !