Tracker Mortgage Decision Reference 2026-0046

• Case Outcome: Rejected
• Year: 2026
• Reference: 2026-0046
• Date: 20 March 2026
• Subject Matter: Tracker Mortgage
• Finantial Sector: Banking
• Conducts Complained Of: Failure to offer a tracker rate throughout the life of the mortgage,Failure to process instructions, Failure to provide correct information

Decision Ref:

2026-0046

Sector:

Banking

Product / Service:

Tracker Mortgage

Conduct(s) complained of:

Failure to offer a tracker rate throughout the life of

the mortgage

Failure to provide correct information

Failure to process instructions

Outcome:

Rejected

LEGALLY BINDING DECISION OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN

Background

This complaint relates to one of two mortgage loan accounts held by the Complainants

with the Provider, namely mortgage loan account ending 7855. For the purposes of this

complaint, it will be necessary to consider the details of both mortgage loans held by the

Complainants which were secured on the Complainants’ principal private residence.

The Letter of Approval dated 29 January 2004 in respect of mortgage loan account ending

7855 provided for a loan amount of €189,000.00 (one hundred and eighty-nine thousand

Euro) and the term of the loan was 30 years. Mortgage loan account ending 7855 was

redeemed from the proceeds of mortgage loan account ending 8841.

The Letter of Approval dated 22 August 2008 in respect of mortgage loan account ending

8841 provided for a loan amount of €255,000.00 (two hundred and fifty-five thousand

Euro) and the term of the loan was 25 years.

The Complainants’ Case

The Complainants submit that in April 2004 they drew down a mortgage loan in the

amount of €189,000.00 (one hundred and eighty-nine thousand Euro), under mortgage

loan account ending 7855, on a one-year fixed interest rate of 2.54%.

- 2 -

/Cont’d…

The Complainants state that in April 2005, they completed a rate options form, selecting a

one-year fixed interest rate of 3.60%, following which in April 2006 they opted for a one-

year fixed interest rate of 3.90%. The Complainants further detail that in May 2007, the

mortgage loan account ending 7855 switched to a tracker interest rate of ECB + 1.25%.

The Complainants state that when they approached the Provider in 2008, seeking a top-up

loan, the Provider refinanced their existing mortgage and issued a new Letter of Approval

in August 2008, which provided for a mortgage loan in the amount of €255,000.00 (two

hundred and fifty-five thousand Euro), on a one-year discounted variable interest rate of

5.75%.

The Complainants indicate that the amount of €255,000.00 (two hundred and fifty-five

thousand Euro) was drawn down on mortgage loan account ending 8841 and their original

mortgage loan account ending 7855 was closed in September 2008.

The Complainants state that mortgage loan account ending 7855 operated as a tracker

mortgage loan until the loan was “churned” on 23 September 2008 “on the request of an

equity release loan.”

The Complainants submit that the Provider should have arranged the top up loan “as an

equity release loan separate to the original loan.” The Complainants indicate however that

when they sought additional finance, their existing loans were “churned into one loan and

Tracker did not apply to Equity Release loans.”

The Complainants assert that “to deny a Tracker Rate on the large bulk of this loan by the

churning of the loan is wrong and unfair” on the Complainants.

The Complainants question “Why did the Provider not arrange for the top up Loan to be

done in addition to the existing loan given that the term of the ‘new’ churned loan was

actually shorter than the existing loan.”

The Complainants state that “At no stage was it explained to us that by consolidating our

existing mortgage loan account with the top up loan” that they would no longer be able to

avail of their tracker interest rate and would lose their tracker mortgage. The

Complainants detail that it was “never explained” to them why they were “put on a new

loan and not simply refinanced which is what we wanted.”

The Complainants assert that the “CPC 2006 is clearly breached with the actions of the

Bank in 2008.” The Complainants are of the view that the Provider in underwriting,

approving, issuing the loan offer and commencing the loan did not at any point “act in the

customers best interests despite being aware that the product the bulk of the account