Tracker Mortgage Decision Reference 2023-0077

• Case Outcome: Rejected
• Subject Matter: Tracker Mortgage
• Reference: 2023-0077
• Date: 30 March 2023
• Finantial Sector: Banking
• Conducts Complained Of: Failure to offer a tracker rate throughout the life of the mortgage

Decision Ref:

2023-0077

Sector:

Banking

Product / Service:

Tracker Mortgage

Conduct(s) complained of:

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 a mortgage loan account which is held by the Complainants with

the Provider.

The loan amount was €600,000.00 and the term of the loan was 15 years. The Letter of

Offer dated 14 February 2008 outlines that the interest rate applicable to the loan was a

tracker interest rate of 5.1% on an interest only basis for the first 2 years.

The Complainants’ Case

The Complainants submit that they applied for a mortgage loan in the sum of €600,000.00

with the Provider in or around February 2008, repayable over a 15-year term on a 2-year

tracker interest rate of 5.10% (ECB + 1.10%).

The Complainants submit that in or around February 2015, they contacted the Provider in

order to negotiate a repayment extension for several years “without success”. The

Complainants submit that they made two proposals to the Provider which included an

- 2 -

/Cont’d…

extension of 10 years onto the term of the mortgage loan and secondly to “[reduce] the

residual amount owing by 50% after a sale.”

The Complainants outline that at the time they were struggling financially and had

refurbished the property numerous times after each tenancy. In addition, the

Complainants submit that they were of the view that the location of the rental property

was “very unprofitable”.

The Complainants outline that the Provider deemed their proposal as unsustainable

however “at no time can [they] recall any feedback of why the proposal was

unsustainable”.

The Complainants submit that the “last tenant left [their] house in November 2014 and

[they] spent just €10K preparing the house for sale at [the Provider’s] suggestion”. The

Complainants assert that they received an offer from a potential buyer for the property in

the sum of €250,000.00 on 20 March 2015 and were not able to close the sale until 16

October 2015. The Complainants contend that the Provider used “delaying tactics” to put

them under financial pressure until they had to pay the residual debt or else forfeit the

sale.

During the intervening period, the Complainants outline that they were in “protracted

discussions” with the Provider. The Complainants argue that they believe that “the main

cause of delay was that [the Provider] would not reply to [their] phone calls or letters in a

timely fashion.” The Complainants detail that they “left numerous phone messages that

received no response.” The Complainants contend that as a result this caused delays

throughout this period and the Complainants submit that they “incurred a lot of extra

costs.” The Complainants refer to e-mails dated 13 April 2015 and 03 July 2015 which

“show the sort of difficulties [they] had communicating with [the Provider]”.

The Complainants submit that they contacted the Provider and requested a specific point

of contact to negotiate the sale. The Complainants outline that they subsequently “[didn’t]

want to lose an offer and end up having to rent the house again.” The Complainants state

that they requested that the tracker interest rate remain on the residual debt in

accordance with “the terms of [their] tracker loan for the rest of the original mortgage

period”. The Complainants outline that this request was “refused”.

The Complainants submit that they contacted the Provider on 13 April 2015 as they were

“concerned that [they] will lose the sale if [they did] not proceed shortly.” The

Complainants outline that they made a further proposal concerning the payment of the

residual debt as they approximated that in or around €270,000.00 would be outstanding

after the sale of the property. The Complainants estimated that they believed with this

further proposal that “the balance should be paid off by age 75.”