Ulsterbank – refusing solutions which offer them full repayment?

A new low has been set in how ridiculous the area of debt mediation can be when dealing with banks. The most recent one is where re-arranged a clients finances to the point where they could make full repayments.

You would think such a proposal would be immediately accepted? Think again, Ulsterbank rejected this proposal for a client of ours. While we cannot reveal specifics what we can say was that the client merely needed some arrears re-capitalised and for a tiny proportion of arrears interest to be waived because there were delays caused by Ulsterbank not returning proposal letters our client sent them (which separately has CPC, CCMA and MARP implications), and was only requested as a way of accepting that both sides had short comings.

They could have said no to that part, as they ‘don’t do debt forgiveness’ (even when they create the problem), but instead they even refused to capitalise arrears which would be repaid in full as per the terms of the existing loan.

It isn’t often that our jaws drop, but when they do they tend to hit the floor, I’d like to thank the team at RBS owned Ulsterbank for proving that the logical equivalent of anti-gravity does indeed exist.

I hope the compliance expense which will be caused by separate complaints on each point to different regulators is as enjoyable as negotiating with them was for our clients.

Comments

  1. Hi Karl

    I don’t understand the point you are making here.

    The bank has refused debt forgiveness – that is their policy. If you client has been overcharged then you can make a complaint to the Financial Services Ombudsman.

    They are refusing to capitalise the arrears at this point in time. So what? Your client can make the full interest and capital repayments, so they should do so. It’s clear from the bit you have underlined that if they keep this up for 6 months, UB will review it. It’s very likely that UB will then capitalise the arrears. I understand that none of them like capitalising the arrears until they see that the borrower is actually demonstrating that they can meet the required repayments.

    Brendan

  2. Hi Brendan,

    I’m delighted to see you here as a visitor! The issue here is about more than only what is in the letter, they have a RIP and a homeloan, the home is on interest only, the RIP on capital and interest, it should be the other way around.

    The proposal had several facets and rather than deal with them individually (and I accept they won’t write down any arrears) they instead blanket reject even the parts that make sense. This is a delay tactic, and took a full 5 weeks to them to reply to!

    The issue is really about the sincerity of the negotiation and from what I can see it is often not sincere at all from the banks perspective.
    thanks again for dropping by!
    karl

Trackbacks for this post

  1. No Alternative Ulster | Broadsheet.ie

Leave a Comment

Awesome! You've decided to leave a comment. Please keep in mind that comments are moderated.