Bank of Ireland increase differential on tracker rates

Have you not learned anything in the past few years about the FOS, FCA, OFT.???, if you have faith in them, then carry on. As for the BoI doing a u turn why would they with out a fight, if we do nothing they don't need to either.
I want to pledge , but to be honest I have been put of with the mind set of others.

Lead by example Ian, that's what the 300 Spartans did in the Wedt Brom case. The rest is legal history.
.

Don't be put off, it was frustrating at the time, but I think things will look different to people now with the West Brom victory. The thing that may put people off is a figure like a million pounds to fight the case. The reason I think the BOI would be sensible not to put up a fight is because we were told our case was in fact stronger than that of the West Brom. and why would the BOI want to spend huge money fighting a case they are likely to loose, paying their own legal fees and also our fees too if they lost.

Reply to the comment left by "ian " at "16/06/2016 - 09:03":

Of course I have no faith in the FOS etc,

However, by rejecting individual calls to reconsider cases in the light of the WB ruling, they will be seen in an even worse light and the inevitable 'Fit for Purpose' discussion will show them as such ie. giving them the opportunity to reconsider ill-judged cases; and them failing miserably, yet again. KEr-powwwww.

All for the sake of a letter or two, which will just build up evidence against them as 'not fit for purpose'.

I have a letter from HM Treasury (HArriet Baldwin) who wrote a long letter to my MP in response to my on-going complaint of both the BoI AND the FOS. I quote,

"I would like to assure you that the GOvernment believes it is vitally important that the FOS should be accountable for it's performance and the quality of its work."

I will, of course, be contactingMs Baldwin, as Economic Secretary to the Treasury, with the evidence.

Clearly, my correspondance would hold more weight if others joined me with their own evidence of the FOS and its absurd and beligerant stand.

Black Panther, I agree. I would write but have no idea where to start. A template that we could adapt would be great. Perhaps it won't do any good, as before. But at least they should feel shamed.

Reply to the comment left by "LS " at "16/06/2016 - 13:23":

I am happy to make available my copy of the letter from HM TReasury to my MP, signed by HArriet Baldwin. A template letter could be drafted and suitably adapted. I'm personally not in the legal profession, so if someone with legal training would be willing to draft a template? that would be useful. In the absence of any offers, I'll give it a go over the next week.

Mark A., is this something that MArk from Cotswolds Barristers would consider drafting?

Another pertinent part of the letter from HM Treasury says:

"The FOS is overseen by a board of directors, appointed by the FCA, and must make a report each year on the discharge of its functions."

Clearly, if the FOS has a multitude of complainants insisting on a reversal of the FOS' original decisions, and they do nothing about it, in the light of the WB ruling, it begs the question - how competant are they at discharging their function?

Well done to the West Brom action team. There is justice !
My BoI mortgage was a product listed as B4P, described as a Fixed product at 1.75% over Base Rate. At no time, either in any of the marketing material, the face to face meetings with the Bristol & West advisor, nor in the illustrations they provided was it ever mentioned that it was a "Tracker Mortgage". Other products were listed as Trackers. I was therefore doubly aggrieved that BoI should say that it actually was a Tracker !! Guess who the FOS sided with !!
As one of the few who put up an original £1,000 hopefully this time others will see that it is a no brainer. The extra interest that I have already paid to the BoI and would have to pay in the future makes any contribution to a fighting fund relatively modest.
I have now pledged £600 as a founding member of the Action Group so hopefully we will have enough others pledge rather than just sitting on the side lines.

Feeling ANGRY - GRRRR!!!!

I'm calling for the resignation of the chairman of the association of Mortgage Intermediaries.

Mortgage Strategy magazine have published quite a good article as a follow up to the Property118 Action Group win against the West Bromwich Mortgage Company in the Court of Appeal.

It is the final comment from the AMI chairman that has got me so would up. Have a look at my comment below the article and feel free to join in.

https://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/leader/
.

I have been in touch with the FOS Adjudicator who had previously rejected my complaint and asked them to reopen / reconsider their previous ruling or consider a new complaint based on the recent ruling from the Appeal Court. The response is as follows;

"I can confirm we have no plans to revisit existing Bank of Ireland cases such as yours at this stage".

I believe the FOS are reluctant to revisit the case because if they did so and found in our favour they would have to acknowledge that they were indeed wrong! Furthermore at the time they did not have Lord Justice Hablen’s West Brom ruling to guide them. The adjudicator goes on to say;

"If you have not done so already - it may be quicker if you were to contact Bank of Ireland directly and ask it what plans it has following the recent Court ruling - I suspect you will not be the only person to do so. Alternatively we can set up a new complaint against Bank of Ireland and give it the 8 weeks it needs to look into the new complaint being raised following the recent Court ruling against West Bromwich Building Society".

The FOS are suggesting that we raise a complaint once again directly with the bank. Personally, I believe that they are hoping that this time the BOI will do the right thing.

It would seem that in light of the Appeal Court decision there are reasonable grounds to ask the bank to commence a new investigation. Should this prove unsuccessful then the FOS will be obliged (once again in light of this recent ruling) to investigate with fresh eyes at which point I believe that they would be forced to rule against the BOI in order to save the embarrassment of being contradicted in court again and proved ‘not fit for purpose’.

Each time the bank fails to settle a complaint and a complaint is referred to the Ombudsman it costs the bank time and money. The bank must factor this in alongside any future court costs when it considers whether or not to reject our claims.

It is not looking good for the BOI should they allow this to go to court, something I would consider to be inevitable should they not reconsider their stance.

As a final note, I believe it is beyond doubt that the BOI and the FOS will be reading these posts. Most certainly the FOS & West Brom were avid readers of the West Brom pages. I hope they will see the strength of feeling and sense of injustice.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "16/06/2016 - 18:03":

You have a right to feel angry Mark. We are simply asking lenders to honour the contracts they provide us with. A consumer should expect nothing less.
Contrary to the AMI Chairman's statement most mortgage brokers that I have spoken to are delighted with the West Brom Court ruling as they believe that it restores confidence in the industry.