Repayment Mortgage Decision Reference 2019-0259

Case OutcomePartially upheld
Subject MatterRepayment Mortgage
Date15 August 2019
Conducts Complained OfSettlement amount (mortgage),Delayed or inadequate communication, Dissatisfaction with customer service , Failure to provide correct information, Fees & charges applied (mortgage)
Finantial SectorBanking
Decision Ref:
Product / Service:
Repayment Mortgage
Conduct(s) complained of:
Settlement amount (mortgage)
Delayed or inadequate communication
Dissatisfaction with customer service
Failure to provide correct information
Fees & charges applied (mortgage)
Partially upheld
The Complainants hold a mortgage loan account with the Provider in respect of their primary
residence. The complaint relates to the Provider’s ongoing assessment of the mortgage
under its Mortgage Arrears Resolution Process (MARP), between 2010 and 2016. The
complaint is that the Provider failed to complete an assessment of the Complainants’
position under MARP and to offer an Alternative Repayment Arrangement (ARA). They
further complain that the Provider failed to respond to purchase offers presented to it with
regard to the sale of the mortgaged property.
The Complainants seek the following resolution from the Provider:
1. that the mortgage loan account be assessed under the Provider’s MARP;
2. that a designated official be appointed to the case; and
3. that a response to the proposals and offers made to the Provider regarding the sale
of the Complainants’ home, be provided.
The Provider has generally refuted the complaint but acknowledges some administration
failures, including a 3 week delay in transferring the Complainants’ complaint letter to its
complaints handling centre. In recognition of any inconvenience and delay, the Provider
offered a goodwill gesture of €280 to the Complainants.
- 2 -
The Complainants’ Case
The Complainants state that the Provider failed to complete an assessment of the private
dwelling house mortgage under its MARP policy or to offer them an ARA. The Complainants
argue that offers were presented to the Provider for consideration, when the house was put
on the market and that various proposals and Standard Financial Statements (SFSs) were
submitted for consideration. The Complainants state that no written response was received
from the Provider to these offers.
The Complainants request that the mortgage be assessed by the Provider and that the case
not be passed from one relationship manager to another but for an individual official to take
responsibility for it. The Complainants seek a written response to their proposals and
subsequent offers on the property. They argue that if these proposals had been accepted or
an indicative sale price agreed, the Provider could have mitigated the loss and assisted their
financial situation at any point between 2010 and 2016.
In an email dated 14 March 2016 from the Complainant to his financial adviser, the first
Complainant set out various proposals he made to the Provider in 2010 and 2012. He
indicated that he proposed that the property would be split into an upstairs apartment and
a downstairs apartment but that this proposal was rejected. He also suggested that a small
part of the property would be turned into apartment and rented, or that he would vacate
the property completely in order to rent it.
A financial adviser acting on behalf of the Complainants argues that it was the understanding
of the Complainants that the loan was an interest only mortgage until 2028. They argue that
the loan was on a tracker rate of interest and that it was originally classified as an
endowment mortgage but that the Provider never actioned the endowment policy. The
Complainants argue that €100,000 was paid towards the mortgage in 2009 from the sale of
another property which, according to the Complainants, means that the interest only
repayments have been fully paid with no arrears. The Complainants note that they have
been advised that the mortgage is part of a loan sale by the Provider, even though the
contractual payments are up-to-date. In a further submission, the Complainants’ financial
adviser states his understanding that the terms of the loan were varied through a broker of
the original lender, in 2008.
The Complainants argue that the letter of offer of 27 August 2003 demonstrates that the
first 12 months of the mortgage were agreed as interest-only repayments at €1,376 per
month at a discounted interest rate of 2.5%, followed by 288 months of interest only of
€1,882.67 per month based on the then prevailing standard variable rate. They argue that
this arrangement is confirmed by section 14 of the Provider’s terms and conditions of the
original offer, which is an illustrative amortisation table and which, they argue, clearly shows
that the loan balance at the end of the 25 years was to be the principal sum of €640,000,
unless either of the secured assets was sold in the meantime.
The Complainants argue that the letter of offer of 27 August 2003, accepted by the
Complainants on 29 September 2003, shows that the Complainants had and still have an
interest only mortgage for the full term. They argue that with capital and interest

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT