Tracker Mortgage Decision Reference 2020-0385

Case OutcomeRejected
Subject MatterTracker Mortgage
Date30 October 2020
Conducts Complained OfRefusal to move existing tracker to a new mortgage product,Failure to offer a tracker rate at point of sale
Finantial SectorBanking
Decision Ref:
Product / Service:
Tracker Mortgage
Conduct(s) complained of:
Refusal to move existing tracker to a new mortgage
Failure to offer a tracker rate at point of sale
This complaint relates to a mortgage loan account held by the Complainants with the
Provider. The mortgage loan was secured on the Complainants’ principal private residence.
The loan amount was €420,000 and the term of the loan was 26 years. The Offer of
Advance signed by the Complainants on 28 August 2014 outlined that the applicable
interest rate was a discount variable rate of 4.1%.
The Complainants’ Case
On 23 November 2005 the First Complainant signed and accepted an Offer of Advance
from the Provider. The loan amount was €350,000 repayable over 30 years.
The Complainants submit that in 2012 they wanted to sell the property which secured the
First Complainant’s mortgage with the Provider in order to “upscale to a bigger property to
accommodate our growing family.” They outline “When we made the decision to sell [the
property] in late 2012 the house was in negative equity but the mortgage was not, hence
being able to sell the property. Our aim was to sell at that time to be able to upscale during
the recession at a cheaper cost.”
- 2 -
The Complainants detail that “We went to [the Provider] and explained our situation as we
were on a tracker mortgage and did not want to loose [sic] it. [The Provider] told us that
we could bring the tracker mortgage over to the new property once we found a new
property within 6 months of selling. [The Provider] also told us that we could borrow more
money to upscale to a new property but it would be on a variable rate.”
The Complainants submit that the property was sold and the First Complainant’s mortgage
was redeemed in October 2012. They state that following this, “it proved to be incredibly
difficult to meet the demands of [the Provider] during the period of our application for
mortgage approval … The system employed by the bank in seeking additional information
each time [the First Complainant] had a meeting arranged, became hugely time consuming
especially as I was trying to complete my application within the 6 month period specified by
the bank, to allow us to carry over the existing tracker mortgage. I feel I was grossly
mistreated during the period of my application and feel [the Provider] took advantage of
the situation knowing that if they took their time, the 6 months would expire and my
tracker mortgage would be lost. This is what ultimately happened”. The Complainants
further submit that the Provider “should by law have stated that [the Complainants] are
allowed to, as owners of a tracker mortgage, be able to carry it through to our next
mortgage over an unlimited timeframe and not the 6 months stated”.
The Complainants further detail that “even though [the Provider] did offer a loan to [the
Complainants] in 2012, it did not meet the criteria we requested to be able to upscale to a
property suitable for our family. With [the First Complainant’s] company accounts proving
that we were able to afford a higher mortgage repayment, [the Provider] did not deem us
fit to make the repayments in which case we could not find a suitable property to purchase.
This is turn led to the tracker mortgage being lost”. The Complainants further state that it
was clear that they “could afford a larger repayment than what was offered … the
mortgage was stress tested at 6% and even at that rate we were very comfortable with the
The Complainants further submit that “Its complete rubbish that [the Provider] refused us
in november 2012 and approved in december 2012 for a small bit less. This was done to
clearly prolong the process and also knowing that the amount they approved was way
below what we required to purchase a property suitable for us and our family. This was
evident when we lost properties we were bidding on because we didnt have enough funds
from the bank. We would have had enough funds if they had allowed the tracker mortgage
be ported over and worked into the figures at the time.”
The Complainants further submit that “the bank have stated that they hold no records of
communication in relation to the tracker. We believe this is untrue as we had discussions
with an employee of the bank going by the name [Redacted] who dealt with mortgages

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