Variable Mortgage Decision Reference 2022-0102

Case OutcomeRejected
Subject MatterVariable Mortgage
Date23 March 2022
Finantial SectorBanking
Conducts Complained OfFees & charges applied (mortgage),Failure to provide accurate account/balance information , Failure to release security, Selling mortgage to t/p provider
Decision Ref:
Product / Service:
Variable Mortgage
Conduct(s) complained of:
Fees & charges applied (mortgage)
Failure to provide accurate account/balance
Selling mortgage to t/p provider
Failure to release security
This complaint concerns two loan accounts. One account is in the sole name of the First
Complainant (00242***), which will be referred to in this decision as ‘Account A’ and one
which is in the name of the Second Complainant which is a Company, and in respect of which
the First Complainant is a personal guarantor (00282***) or ‘Account B’.
The Complainants’ Case
The Complainants say that in December 2016 the Provider sold the Complainants’ facilities
to a third party entity. The Complainants state that the balances of the two loans that were
transferred to the third party, were incorrect.
The Complainants assert that their financial advisors conducted an analysis of the
overcharging by the Provider. The Complainants state that the financial advisor arrived at
figures of approximately €13,769.73 for Account A and €11,880.81 for Account B.
The Complainant submits that he is dissatisfied with ‘the manner in which [the Provider]
handled these two facilities”.
- 2 -
The Provider’s Case
The Provider, in its letter dated 29th March 2020, states that it was very supportive of the
Complainants and their business, noting that forbearance was granted a number of times.
The Provider states that it would have been justified in calling in the liabilities owed to it and
it considers that its actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
The Provider states its confirmation that, with regard to Account B, the correct interest was
charged from the date of drawdown, to the date the Complainants’ facilities were sold and
I can confirm that the [Provider] has not incorrectly calculated the margin on your
loan facilities and has not overcharged you in this regard”.
The Complaint for Adjudication
The complaint is that the Provider poorly administered and overcharged the Complainants’
loan accounts.
The Complainant wants the Provider to:
- Review the level of interest refunded in light of the Complainants’ financial advisors’
- Address the shortcomings in how it dealt with the Complainants’ facilities;
- Propose how it will remediate the situation;
- Explain how it arrived at its decision to sell the Complainants’ loans to a third party.
During the investigation of this complaint by this Office, the Provider was requested to
supply its written response to the complaint and to supply all relevant documents and
information. The Provider responded in writing to the complaint and supplied a number of
items in evidence. The Complainants were given the opportunity to see the Provider’s
response and the evidence supplied by the Provider. A full exchange of documentation and
evidence took place between the parties.
In arriving at my Legally Binding Decision I have carefully considered the evidence and
submissions put forward by the parties to the complaint. Having reviewed and considered
the submissions made by the parties to this complaint, I am satisfied that the submissions
and evidence furnished did not disclose a conflict of fact such as would require the holding
of an Oral Hearing to resolve any such conflict. I am also satisfied that the submissions and
evidence furnished were sufficient to enable a Legally Binding Decision to be made in this
complaint without the necessity for holding an Oral Hearing.

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