Tracker Mortgage Decision Reference 2025-0186

• Case Outcome: Rejected
• Year: 2025
• Reference: 2025-0186
• Date: 15 December 2025
• Subject Matter: Tracker Mortgage
• 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:

2025-0186

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 of the Complainants’ mortgage loan accounts held with the

Provider. Both mortgage loans are secured on the Complainants’ residential investment

property.

The Letter of Sanction dated 25 July 2003 in relation to mortgage loan account ending

7089 provided for a loan in the amount of €182,500.00 repayable over a term of 25 years.

The Letter of Offer dated 26 January 2005 in relation to mortgage loan account ending

2099 provided for a loan in the amount of €50,000.00 repayable over a term of 10 years.

The Complainants’ Case

The Complainants submit that mortgage loan account ending 7089 was sanctioned on 25

November 2003 and, at the time of approval and drawdown, they were not offered a

tracker interest rate. The Complainants state that the Provider offered them a staff

interest rate, as the Second Complainant was a member of staff with the Provider. The

Complainants are of the view that the Provider was offering tracker interest rates to non-

staff customers in 2003. The Complainants submit that the Provider “failed to offer [them]

- 2 -

/Cont’d…

a tracker facility at drawdown which would have been the best option for [them] with the

tracker interest rate of 2%”.

The Complainants submit that the Provider failed to issue correspondence to them

advising that the fixed interest rate period had expired in or around September 2004 and,

as a result, they were not offered a tracker interest rate for mortgage loan account ending

7089. The Complainants assert that the “tracker rate was still 2% but the Bank did not

contact us at the time to give us any further options”.

The Complainants note that the Provider “did not address the issue of the monthly

repayment being increased following the expiry of the fixed rate in September 2004”. The

Complainants outline that the repayment increased from €841.89 to €895.13 and this

“remained the same” during the period September 2004 to April 2009 “despite numerous

interest rate changes during this period”.

The Complainants state that the Provider indicated in its final response letter of 14 June

2018 that tracker interest rates were not available to staff until 2005, which the

Complainants contend “was both unfair and unethical to exclude Staff Mortgages for this

time.” The Complainants detail that the Provider has “not explained why Staff were

excluded from availing of Tracker rate mortgages for the period 2002 to 2005”.

The Complainants submit that mortgage loan account ending 2099 drew down in or

around January 2005 on a tracker interest rate of 3.50% (ECB + 1.50%) for an amount of

€50,000.00 over a term of 10 years. The Complainants are of the view that the margin of

1.50%, which was applied to the mortgage loan account, was “very high”. The

Complainants contend that the Provider was “profiting at [their] expense and not giving

[them] best value”. The Complainants submit that the Provider “denied cheaper rates” and

failed to inform them about rate changes.

The Complainants submit that they contacted the Provider to review their interest rate

options in or around June 2006. The Complainants assert that they “were struggling to

meet a number of loan repayments” and, at the time, they had “requested that the Bank

amalgamate existing facilities and include a top-up”. The Complainants submit that as a

result of this, mortgage loan account ending 2099 which operated on a tracker rate was

redeemed with funds from another mortgage loan account ending 7402 that was held by

the Complainants. The Complainants state that the Provider “closed the tracker mortgage

facility and sanctioned the facility on staff mortgage”. The Complainants submit that they

“felt that we had no option at the time but to accept what we were offered to allow us to

meet our monthly commitments”.