Bank of Ireland increase differential on tracker rates

Reply to the comment left by "LS " at "12/08/2015 - 11:17":

finally had a call back (3rd attempt) with somone (Nick) who can actually do something, getting a fixed rate at 3.29% for 5 years with no switch cost and a max overpayment of 10%/year in a lump sum of min £500 , if I can manage 10% it would reduce my mortgage by almost half while the rate is lower....big ask of relatives to help out !
Waiting the offer letter which I have to get back by end August. I will make sure I read their Ts and Cs carefuly knowing now how slippery they can be !
I hope they are quick getting the offer out !

Who is the mortgage with Tricia?

IMPORTANT REMINDER

There is a deal you can switch to with BoI, basically the deal I put Tricia onto.

See this link >>> http://www.property118.com/bank-of-ireland-deal/76533/
.

Reply to the comment left by "Concerned about my BOI mortgage" at "12/08/2015 - 12:57":

The mortgage is with Bank of Ireland, (buy-to-let)

Originally takenout with with Bristol & West who sold their mortgage business to Bank of Ireland. So I never chose B of I !

Reply to the comment left by "MADOONA G" at "12/08/2015 - 00:22":

What many if you may be missing is the fact that sometimes the borrower will have used a lawyer who the bank introduced to deal with the mortgage. That lawyer owes a duty of care to both the bank with which it has a separate agreement and the borrower, putting them in a position of conflict. And then they fail to advise the borrower in writing that there was a possibility under the terms of the loan that the bank could increase its differential, this is negligence committed by a professional owing a duty of care to the borrower and at a time when they're conflicted, enabling a disgruntled borrower to bring the lawyer in to any legal action either as a co defendant alongside the borrower if the bank is taking action against the borrower say on a repo attempt by the bank or as a co defendant alongside the bank on any action the borrower is taking against the bank. And my experience is lawyers' professional indemnity insurers tend to settle well before any bank would. Something to think about ...

By the way, given that I'm now bring bombarded with emails of new posts to this forum by people who appear to have woken up thinking there's a chink in the bank's armoury and are looking for free lawyer and other advice and help but wouldn't put their hands in their pockets when asked to, I'm unsubscribing so won't be ravaging any responses to the above point I made about the position of conflict some lawyers will be in.

Can someone please explain why this ruling is not applicable to us? thanks

Reply to the comment left by "Paul Brindley" at "13/08/2015 - 08:41":

Dear Paul

I assume you mean that I have just woken up . I have been fighting against BOI for the last 7 years over one matter or another.( not allowing me to port my mortgage when I wanted to - having a base rate tracker that wasn't a base rate tracker - having a 50 % increase in 2012 on one part of my mortgage only to be swiftly followed by another 50% increase on the second half of the mortgage on 2013. having complained to FOS 4 times about BOI conduct. This was all Well before the first post on this forum and my discovering Property 118 existed . I discovered property 118 to late to join your "pay in" forum . The reason I have posted the Simon Pugh ruling is because some people would be bound on their mortgage offers to the T& C which are mentioning section 6 (F) if this is the case they can re visit the FOS and quote this ruling and get their money back . I am doing them a favour by posting this ruling . Plus the more the BOI have to pay back to any consumer the happier I feel . I can assure you I have a very large mortgage and would have very much liked to stayed on the old rate and not paid the increase - however my hands were tied because I had my family to think of - so I decide to complain instead quoting un fairness - not receiving the right information at the time and no mention of differentials ever in any conversations be it broker/ lawyer or BoI - I would like to sue my lawyer ( who I never even spoke to - all correspondence was via letter and the broker - they have gone bust and to ground - so no point suing them) but she the conveyancer has left the company and I do understand this is a possible route and I could sue the company - and I am thinking of doing just that! however the point I would like to make about that the ruling by Simon Pugh is over an error and all of a sudden the lucky Mr and Mrs J get their money back ! so if they got those T & C s many may have had the same ones - so these consumers can claim back . The ones who didn't get any can say their offer referred to the same erroneous T& Cs whether they received them or not - so they can claim back .

as all other arguments have failed as you can see from the comments on here ( its not fair / we didn't get T&C / we weren't told about the differentials / they had the right re capitalise etc ) plus the west brom class action did'nt do as well as expected its no wonder that people give up the fight.
However the fact that BOI has made an error in its literature is great news! SO turn omission of T&Cs being doled out on its head and we can all say we aggrieved we didn't have those T&C - let the BOI prove they didn't give out more of those erroneous T&Cs in 2004. maybe because of this error they didn't send out T&Cs when they should have done - have you thought of that ?

I personally think I am onto something - so I have asked for Simon Pugh for copy of the T&Cs he is referring to ;

Dear Mr Pugh
Thank you for the information in relation to your statements and findings. Please advise which T & Cs you are quoting from and please supply a copy of the Residential Mortgage conditions that you have used for your verdict.
My mortgage was also taken out in January 2004 and is in two sub accounts. Your ruling may apply to my case.

Funnily enough I have my reply and very swift it was too he originally said he could comment only on what is stated in the report ;

Dear x
I’m afraid I can’t comment any further on the case that was the subject of my decision. If you have any queries about your own case, you will need to get in touch with the adjudicator who dealt with it. Each case is dealt with individually.
Yours sincerely
Simon Pugh

I would call that a door slamming and a very quick response it was not 18 months like my Adjudicator took to say no to my case ! Plus he wont tell which T &Cs he is referring to contain the error ? I have a copy of 2002 T&Cs they don't contain the error but who is to say the Mortgage regulations he is referring should have been received by everyone by law and if the bank has not issued them ! the case against them can be fought against them due to simple administration error in the contract instead of highbrow legal arguments regarding contractual law which have got us no where!

So I do think I am onto something and I am sorry you feel that you have been inundated with emails and will leave the fight ! because you are in a position to help people and I cannot if you point each emailer to the ruling - consumers can check to see if they had the same error in the T&C or if they didn't receive the T&Cs they can start saying that it was due to that error the bank failed to send out T&Cs and they too would be entitled to a refund if the bank cant prove they were never sent the erroneous copy. Even if BOI had to rescind their decision on say a handful of people say another 2000 . multiply that by say £10,000 over paid a piece that's a lot of money lost by BOI and that will make be feel extremely happy . The offer you mention on the buy to let is a sweetener for some but I think the bank is trying to appease a few more people so people stop thinking about the illegal hike - why else would they be doing it - they are normally as tight as a gnat's arse ! plus why did they offer sweeteners to some people to take their mortgage elsewhere previous to that ? we do not know how many cases they have had to rescind - I would love to know that ! 13,000 affected - maybe 3,000 left to go elsewhere, they didn't really want them any way - 1200 rescinded as mortgage tied to bank account ( as per news report) - 1 case lost at FOS for sure - buy to let offers maybe taken up by 2000 ! All speculation I know but nevertheless this bank needs to be taught a lesson !

Reply to the comment left by "Simon tk" at "13/08/2015 - 21:47":

Simon - look at the ruling carefully and read it a few times - check your paperwork in particular your mortgage offer to see if it matches what Pugh quotes - if its mentioning the same section 6( f) you may be one of the lucky ones and the offer refers to the Mortgage Regulations which contain the error . section 6 (f) is blank so the contract you are bound by is flawed therefore the FOS ruled that the contract does not hold and you can't change the differential . BOI tried to say it was just a printing error and the couple should of realised that but FOs ruled that in probability they cant be expected to know what should have been written there.

If any one can shed light on which mortgage regulations he is talking about please advise - Pugh has flatly refused to tell me which mortgage regulations he is quoting from - the couple took out the mortgage in 2004 did any one receive mortgage regulations at the same time that contain this blank section 6 F - I would love to get my hands on a copy and send it to a solicitor to see what his thoughts are on the matter ! does anyone know the lucky Mr and Mrs J ?

The Residential mortgage Conditions that the FOS mention in the Final decision is
Residential Mortgage Conditions 2001 Bristol and West - and I have printed a copy off - it was provided by property 118 after I googled for Mortgage conditions for BOI .

The mortgage offer letter of Mr and Mrs J contained an error and referred to sect 6 f instead of 6 t when referring to the residential mortgage conditions in relation to varying the interest rate . 6 f doesn't state the terms by which you can vary the ' differential ' but 6 t does - so basically on this technicality the Ombudsman ruled the rate could not be changed and they were due a refund so I can only conclude that unless your offer letter contains the same mistake the T&Cs are binding according to FOS .
However I don't understand how the Bank Of Ireland can get away with sending out / these residential terms to Buy to Let or to BOI mortgage holders when they are B&W residential mortgage conditions. Pity the FOS couldn't have been more forthcoming it could have saved me a lot of time - on the bright side -I searched the FOS decision page by putting in Bank of Ireland in the search bar and there are over 30,000 complaints.

search results (11-20 of 37045)

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/

search key words for Bank of Ireland - must of cost the UK FOS a fortune by now !!!!

If I can pick up on Paul's comment above & it is something I referred too in a previous post Almost a matter of course the same solicitors acted on both sides of BOI mortgage transactions. To the best of my knowledge in the case of problem mortgages in NI the bank through its own litigation solicitors has been quite active, aggressive even in pursuing other local solicitors in relation to these