FSO Ruling did not match submission

pado

Registered User
Messages
4
I have 21 days to appeal to the High Court an FSO ruling. 2 of the points of submission were not included in the adjudication despite the FSO acknowledging them and specifically asking the Bank to respond. On 1 of these points the FSO also ruled it out of scope (6 year rule) as mortgages taken out prior to 2003. The mortgages were taken out in April 2007 and I both the Bank and I provided details of this at the time of the submission in 2013. I've no choice now but to appeal to the High Court. The cost though from looking at the threads here are astronomical can anyone advise on my situation?
 
I am not sure that the FSO needs to comment on every point made in a submission. If he felt that the substantial issue was not upheld, this point may have been moot.

The High Court will only overturn a decision if there is a very serious error or series of errors in the decision. Even if the High Court overturns the decision, he will just send it back to the FSO to reexamine it.

It's tough, but I think you have to accept the decision and move on.

You could play chicken with the Ombudsman and the other side and initiate High Court proceedings hoping that they will agree with you before it goes to court. But that will be very expensive.

How much compensation are you claiming? Or is it a tracker related issue?
 
pado;

The FSO are not to be trusted to act impartialy or fairly
.
Their own statistics show only a 12% finding for consumers.
Their Senior Staff appear to be ex Senior Bank people.With the best will in the world I would fear these staff are inculcated with a (failed) Banking mindset.
The (6 year rule) is a bona fide reason for the FSo not to respond.
On the 6 year rule The Law Reform Comm in 2011 recomended it be changed . Our Government has not changed it , notwithstanding most Law Reform Recommendations are carried out.
FSO views are tightly legalistic, as per their presentatation to Dial Committee.
If you read comments on Payment Protection in AAM , you will get an idea of what I refer to.
If you let me know your 2nd submission , I will give you an opinion.

It is very very disheartening to use FSO to end up with contemplating High Court.
Unless the complaint involves large sums you could have district courted yourself at max circa k2.
 
I'm not claiming compensation. I'm an ex staff member who worked for the bank for 13 years. During that time money was advanced at the whim of sometimes an email. We had been in Marp for 6 years (before the phrase was even coined) and when I left the Bank things turned sour. Part of the complaint I argued was that the bank was at fault for overlending...they wouldnt (and didnt) give customers the amount we borrowed based on affordabilities. I simply wanted to FSO to force the Bank to engage with us on the basis that the money was leant on the affordability and relationship as a staff member and that same service should be given to all customers.
 
Gerry,

the 2nd issue related to the fact that I am now being treated differently after having left the bank than I was when I worked there. Again, specific questions were put to the provider on this as I had showed how decisions were made on foot of emails whereby for customers this would not have been the case. I made a SAR to the bank after I left and so was able to furnish this to the FSO. To be fair having worked on the other side of the fence for so long and being on the submission side to the FSO on behalf of the bank I saw cases which for sure I felt could not be found in favour of the customer but it was. On the points that it ruled on its findings I have no issue per se as the did partly upheld the customer service element. Its not ideal and the comp is derisory at €300 when arrears on the case is €10k but its the fact that neither of the points submitted on were ruled on and they made a fatal error in stating the loans were taken out at a time when they were not.

On the 6 year rule I believe the actual rule around this is if the activity complained of happened > 6 years ago so if you only became aware of it now I have seen cases were the still took it on.

The whole issue of only being able to appeal to the High Court which I think came about because of a specific case setting precendence really needs to be looked at. As a statutory body there needs to be an accessible and affordable means for the general lay person to be able to have representation without lining the pockets of barristers.

The facts are the facts!
 
I hear you Pado.
From your first post I could only make a generalised stab at your issues, so sorry if I have over stepped things.
........................
I cannot see it in FSO,s remit to force a Bank to engage.It seems you supplied FSO with good info. Yes It appears the Bank lent in a very unwise assinine manner , yes it appears they lent differently to you as per normal customers. There is no law ,against how they lent to you and no law on stupid lending.
You got compensation 300 for Bank issue on customer service.
It will be looked at that you took the money = tough.
I would suggest Fso may have thought , that since you were in Banking you should have known the pitfalls!( I know hindsight is great !)

The whole issue of 6 year rule is very unsatisfactory.
What the Law REform In 2011 proposed was that people could claim for 3 years AFTER they become aware of an issue.
Only in Very Very few cases is there an allowance on this point (if there was I would have thousands ppi cases)

You are correct .Our FSO was supposed to avoid long/expensive legal wrangling.Having deals forced to High Court is not good.

If there is any comfort for you; I strongly sense a more pragmatic view coming into Banks on arrears/mortgages . There have been some great threads on AAM , can I suggest put your figures in and see what some of the excellent contributors come back with.
 
Thanks Gerry, yes would agree with your view and it was never about forcing them to engage more in line of being consistent...you cant expect to treat someone in Marp for 6 years and cut them lose after that!

The €300 is what they put in their ruling this week in light of the fact the bank have not responded when they were supposed to and not engaged in the way they should have.

So its not that I'm accepting it exactly and i'm not receiving it directly they were instructed to apply it against the mortgage balance which as I say is €10k in arrears.

They tried playing the card about knowing the pitfalls themselves but to be fair they first leant to us when we were 19 and it went on from there!

Have even tried contacting another 3rd party to mediate and am getting the run around there too.

Have gone back again with another proposal to the Bank to try and deal with arrears (prior to findings this week) but I will take up your suggestion at looking at the other threads. If I had of know that this is how things would have ended up I would never have left in the first place!!
 
Yes It appears the Bank lent in a very unwise assinine manner , yes it appears they lent differently to you as per normal customers. There is no law ,against how they lent to you and no law on stupid lending.
.

There is no law against stupid borrowing either. The High Court has ruled clearly that the argument of reckless lending simply does not stand up.

As the OP was a banker himself, he has no case.

I doubt if a barrister or solicitor would advise him to take his case to the High Court.
 
Back
Top