Tracker Mortgage Decision Reference 2025-0198

• Case Outcome: Rejected
• Year: 2025
• Reference: 2025-0198
• Date: 18 December 2025
• Subject Matter: Tracker Mortgage
• Finantial Sector: Banking
• Conducts Complained Of: Failure to offer a tracker rate at point of sale

Decision Ref:

2025-0198

Sector:

Banking

Product / Service:

Tracker Mortgage

Conduct(s) complained of:

Failure to offer a tracker rate at point of sale

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 the subject of this complaint were secured on the

Complainant’s residential investment property.

The Letter of Approval dated 26 May 2006 in respect of the mortgage loan account ending

9864 provided for a mortgage loan in the amount of €250,000.00 (two hundred and fifty

thousand Euro) repayable over a term of 20 years.

The Letter of Approval dated 24 January 2008 in respect of mortgage loan account ending

7242 provided for a mortgage loan in the amount of €270,000.00 (two hundred and

seventy thousand Euro) repayable over a term of 25 years.

Mortgage loan account ending 9864 was redeemed from the proceeds of mortgage loan

account ending 7242.

The Complainant’s Case

The Complainant submits that he drew down a new mortgage in the amount of

€270,000.00 (two hundred and seventy thousand Euro) under mortgage loan account

- 2 -

/Cont’d…

ending 7242 on a variable rate of 5.35%, and his original mortgage loan account ending

9864 was closed in February 2008.

The Complainant submits that only the €20,000.00 (twenty thousand Euro) portion of the

new loan amount was an equity release therefore the original loan should have remained

in place on a tracker interest rate. The Complainant submits that “the correct action would

have been for the equity release loan to be arranged as a separate loan” in the amount of

€20,000.00 (twenty thousand Euro) and that the correct interest rate to be applied to the

new mortgage loan account ending 7242 is ECB + 1.10%.

The Complainant submits that “there is a defined and certain Margin of Tracker” contained

in the mortgage loan documentation for his original tracker mortgage loan. The

Complainant submits that the Provider stated that the margin would not be exceeded for

the duration of the loan and that “the opposite has occurred” because he was not allowed

to apply this rate to his new borrowings.

The Complainant outlines that the Provider now claims that it did not offer tracker interest

rates on equity release loans. The Complainant argues that “the only aspect of this loan

that fell into the category of the Providers “[Provider’s Equity Release Loan Product]” loan

was the top up amount” of €20,000.00 (twenty thousand Euro). The Complainant submits

that there is “no logical reason for the “churning” of the original loan especially as the

confirmed position of the lender is that it did not do Tracker Rates of interest on

“[Provider’s Equity Release Loan Product]” loans”. The Complainant asserts that “to deny a

Tracker Rate on the large bulk of this loan by the churning of the loan is wrong and unfair

on [him] and needs to be corrected”.

The Complainant submits that “if there had been any application of the Consumer

Protection Code 2006 and its principles what occurred would not have happened”. The

Complainant states that he cannot understand how the Provider continues to call

mortgage loan account ending 7242 “an equity release” when only €20,000.00 (twenty

thousand Euro) of the loan is equity release.

The Complainant submits that if the Provider was thinking of the “Customers best

interests” as it was “obligated” to do so, then it would have transferred €20,000.00

(twenty thousand Euro) from the existing loan account ending 9864 to the €20,000.00

(twenty thousand Euro) top-up loan amount sought to reach the minimum threshold of

the Provider’s equity release loan amount of €40,000.00 (forty thousand Euro). The

Complainant asserts that this would be the proper and correct way and would reflect both

the intentions of the Complainant and meet the minimum equity release loan threshold

that the Provider had at the time. The Complainant submits that anything else is

“churning” and this action by the Provider “cannot stand any test of reason and fairness”

as it resulted in the loss of his tracker mortgage.