Tracker Mortgage Decision Reference 2023-0013

Case OutcomeRejected
Reference2023-0013
Date23 January 2023
Year2023
Subject MatterTracker Mortgage
Finantial SectorBanking
Conducts Complained OfRefusal to move existing tracker to a new mortgage product
Decision Ref:
2023-0013
Sector:
Banking
Product / Service:
Tracker Mortgage
Conduct(s) complained of:
Refusal to move existing tracker to a new mortgage
product
Outcome:
Rejected
LEGALLY BINDING DECISION OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN
Background
This complaint relates to a mortgage loan account held by the Complainant with the
Provider. The mortgage loan which is the subject of this complaint is secured on the
Complainant’s principal private residence.
The loan amount is €150,000.00 and the term of the loan was 20 years. The Letter of
Offer, which was accepted and signed by the Complainant on 18 February 2013, outlines
that the interest rate applicable to the loan was a loan to value variable rate of 4.04%.
The Complainant’s Case
The Complainant outlines that she approached the Provider in March 2012 to sell her
existing home and to obtain a new mortgage in the amount of €150,000.00 to purchase a
new property. The Complainant states that “she was reducing the current mortgage to a
smaller value mortgage from approximately €198k [account ending 0101] to €150k” which
she highlights “was reducing [the Provider’s] and [her] risk by seeking a lower mortgage”.
At the time, the Complainant details that her existing mortgage loan with the Provider was
operating on a tracker interest rate.
- 2 -
/Cont’d…
The Complainant details that her mortgage loan application for a new mortgage loan was
later approved on 26 June 2012, but a tracker interest rate was not made available to her.
The Complainant is of the view that this was “an extraordinary length of time to get
provisional approval” for the mortgage. The Complainant asserts that “[i]n seeking the
approval [the Provider] made this extremely difficult (6 months) and repeatedly asked [her]
for additional documentation after [she] provided all documentation listed”. The
Complainant contends that the Provider “made a concerted effort to frustrate the
[application] process” to prevent her from moving house quickly.
During the mortgage loan application process, the Complainant also submits that the
Provider’s representatives requested information in relation to her child’s medical
condition and prognosis, which she believes was of no relevance to her application. The
Complainant contends that such questions were not asked to determine the affordability
of her mortgage, as her liability as a customer was reducing because the new mortgage
she was seeking was less than her existing one. The Complainant maintains that such
questions were “overly intrusive” and amounted to “discrimination”.
The Complainant indicates that she subsequently sold her then existing property in
October 2012.
The Complainant states that she feels that she “was not treated fairly” by the Provider
when she requested to retain her tracker interest rate and did not receive “equitable
treatment” from the Provider. The Complainant states that she “discussed keeping the
tracker” interest rate on her new mortgage and “enquired if [she] could avail of the tracker
interest retention” product. The Complainant details that the Provider denied her requests.
In addition, the Complainant submits that the Provider owed her an “obligation of
fairness” to ensure that any new mortgage would not put her in a potentially difficult
situation. The Complainant notes that the Provider offered a tracker rate retention
product to customers in 2014 and queries why she has not been offered such a product.
She states that the Provider “failed to follow their published customer commitments that
they put their customers first”.
The Complainant is seeking to have a tracker interest rate applied to her current mortgage
loan at the same margin as her previous mortgage loan account ending 0101. The
Complainant is also seeking a refund of the difference in interest paid since drawdown of
her mortgage loan in February 2013, and an apology form the Provider querying her child’s
medical condition.
The Provider’s Case

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