Tracker Mortgage Decision Reference 2024-0146

• Case Outcome: Rejected
• Year: 2024
• Date: 27 June 2024
• Reference: 2024-0146
• Finantial Sector: Banking
• Conducts Complained Of: Failure to offer a tracker rate at point of sale,Failure to offer a tracker rate throughout the life of the mortgage

Decision Ref:

2024-0146

Sector:

Banking

Product / Service:

Tracker Mortgage

Conduct(s) complained of:

Failure to offer a tracker rate at point of sale

Failure to offer a tracker rate throughout the life of

the mortgage

Outcome:

Rejected

LEGALLY BINDING DECISION OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN

Background

This complaint relates to two mortgage loan accounts held by the Complainant with the

Provider. The mortgage loan accounts that are the subject of this complaint are secured on

the Complainant’s principal private residence.

The Letter of Sanction dated 02 December 2004 regarding mortgage loan account ending

4371 was for a sum of €190,460.00 repayable over a term of 35 years. Mortgage loan

account ending 4371 closed on 06 March 2014 and the funds were transferred to a new

mortgage loan account ending 4108.

The Letter of Sanction dated 02 December 2004 regarding mortgage loan account ending

4454 was for a sum of €129,540.00 repayable over a term of 35 years. Mortgage loan

account ending 4454 closed on 06 March 2014 and the funds were transferred to a new

mortgage loan account ending 4298.

The Complainant’s Case

The Complainant submits that at application and drawdown of her mortgage loan accounts

ending 4371 and 4454 in 2004/2005, “tracker rates were never discussed or offered to

- 2 -

/Cont’d…

[her] at any stage”. The Complainant explains that in 2005 her mortgage loan accounts

opened on a one-year new business fixed interest rate.

The Complainant outlines that she is a staff member with the Provider and was so at the

time of her mortgage loan application. The Complainant submits that the Provider’s “staff

business branch did not have the same rates available to its customers as the rest of the

[Provider’s] branch network” and “the staff business branch did not have tracker rates until

a much later date than the wider [Provider] network”. The Complainant asserts that she

“was never informed of the different offerings between [Provider] branches and the staff

business branch at any point during [her] mortgage application. The Complainant

maintains that she “was not treated equally with non-staff customers”.

The Complainant details that the Provider has said that she was free to make her mortgage

loan application at a branch and in this regard the Complainant submits that staff “were

actively informed that [they] should not be conducting [their] business in the branch

network and “clogging” it up – [they] were to leave the network of branches free for

customers (non-staff)”.

The Complainant asserts that it was “widely understood” that if you were a member of the

Provider’s staff, you went to the staff business unit and “availed of the same products as

all other customers with the added benefit of being allowed to avail of a staff rate on a

maximum amount of c€190k”. The Complainant states that she drew down her mortgage

loans on a one-year fixed new business interest rate in February 2005, which she indicates

“was the best rate by staff business”. The Complainant asserts that she was presented with

one type of interest rate.

The Complainant states that the Provider introduced tracker interest rates for staff

customers in late 2005, however she has “no memory of this given the passage of time nor

any records in [her] mortgage file of documentation”. The Complainant states that her

mortgage loan was operating on a fixed interest rate at that time therefore breaking out of

the fixed interest rate would not have been feasible. The Complainant submits that when

the fixed interest rate ended in or around February 2006, she was “once again” not

informed of the interest rates available to her, including a tracker interest rate. The

Complainant contends that there was no communication from the Provider either at

drawdown or at the expiry of the fixed interest rate period as to what interest rate options

were available to her.

The Complainant asserts that “the transparency and accuracy of information [she] received

was not adequate to enable [her] to make an informed decision on the rate choices

available to [her] from [the Provider] at both draw down and later during the lifetime of

[her] mortgage”. The Complainant maintains that she was not made aware that there was