2023年6月22日

清華2023年6月22日—37阿爾斯特銀行已經失去了高等法院上訴發現兩個借款人有權追蹤抵押貸款退款和賠償。正義瑪格麗特·博爾格女士周四駁回上訴兩個決策由金融服務和養老金專員(FSPO),銀行說可以影響成千上萬的客戶。銀行未能說服法院司法特派員落入“嚴重和重大”的錯誤在他的決策。法官很滿意她可以維護FSPO的決定基礎上,銀行的行為是違反合同和消費者保護的義務。閱讀更多的兩個借款人在全行業檢查排除在賠償由中央銀行在2015年末和2019年中期之間。銀行最初上訴司法特派員的綁定客戶的決定在三種情況下有一個“持久的合同權利”追蹤利率(與歐洲央行(ECB)主要利率)期後固定利率貸款。在聽證會上的高等法院上訴去年10月,法官被告知方同意的決策受到挑戰將撥出,與申訴專員重新考慮此事。然而,訂單被擱置在關係,讓正義。博爾格女士的裁決通知方向陪同赦免。上訴法院主要集中在前三種情況之一。本例中涉及兩個2004年4月,拿出抵押貸款的借款人,最初有一年期利率降低,恢複到之前阿爾斯特銀行所謂的住房貸款利率,其產品標準變量。 They signed a so-called flexible mortgage transfer form in 2006, entitling them to move on to a tracker loan. They subsequently applied in May 2007, as ECB rates were rising, to fix their interest rates until August 2010. The relating loan documents said the bank may offer to extend the fixed period at the end of the fixed term or offer “alternative available products”. However, if these were not accepted, the contract stated, the borrowers would automatically revert to the bank’s home loan rate. When the fixed rate period came to an end, the borrowers sought to revert to their previous tracker rate, but the bank refused as it stopped offering that rate to new customer since 2008. In her ruling on Thursday, the judge said a “significant factor” of the ombudsman’s analysis of the loan contract was the bank’s original commitment to offering the borrowers “alternative available products” at the end of the fixed rate period. The bank never explained that the tracker rate they were on might not be available when their fixed rates came to an end, she said. The FSPO, represented in court by Eileen Barrington and Francis Kieran, was entitled to decide that the borrowers’ contractual entitlement to the tracker rate continued at their election, the judge said. Whatever interest rate the borrowers were entitled to must come from the contract they entered with the bank, she said, noting there was no rescission of the contract when the clients switched to other interest rates. While Ulster Bank described the move to the fixed rate as “revised terms of a given loan facility”, the judge said the borrowers never entered into a new agreement that set aside their previous contractual rights to revert to a tracker rate. She noted it was not for the court to consider if it would have reached a different decision on the evidence before the FSPO. She was only to look at whether there was a serious and significant error or series of errors in his findings, she said. Ms Justice Bolger refused the bank’s appeals and affirmed the ombudsman’s decisions.