# FSO's comments on tracker issues



## Brendan Burgess (18 Oct 2017)

Ger Deering was interviewed on Radio Eireann's Morning Ireland at around 7.25 

Since 2009, we have received 1,800 complaints.
We decided on 700 , 25% of which we have upheld. 

The best way to proceed is for the banks to co-operate with the Central Bank.  As we have to deal with each complaint individually. 

I was disappointed to hear that 2 of the banks are in dispute with the Central Bank. It suggests that the culture has not changed in some banks. 

Rachel English: Was it a mistake or deliberate?
Deering: I don't know . We studied 500 of our cases and sent the results to the Central Bank to inform their review of the issue.  Different banks have different approaches. Some act in the best interests of their customers as required by the Consumer Protection Code - others defend their bottom line.

If someone is not happy with the outcome of the Central Bank review, they can complain to us. This complaint could be:

I didn't get my tracker back, but I believe that I should have
I got my tracker back but on the wrong rate
I got my tracker back but at the wrong time 

I want to complain about the bank's conduct in the process generally.


----------



## todo (18 Oct 2017)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Ger Deering was interviewed on Radio Eireann's Morning Ireland at around 7.25
> 
> If someone is not happy with the outcome of the Central Bank review, they can complain to us.



I assume the above doesn't hold, if the bank has deemed that your mortgage is not in-scope for the review.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (18 Oct 2017)

Hi todo

Ger Deering has interpreted his powers much more to the limit than his predecessor. 

He has tended to assume that all complaints are in scope and encouraged the lenders to deal with him on that basis. 

So I would suggest that if you think you lost your tracker unfairly but the bank decided that you didn't, then you can take a complaint to the FSO. 

As regards the 6 year time limit, you would be complaining about the bank's decision this year to exclude you from the review. That decision is within the 6 years.  If you complain about something that happened in 2008, you would be time barred.

Brendan


----------



## Banking17 (18 Oct 2017)

TV 3 Pat Kenny feature at 10 tonight on tracker issue.


----------



## Tedtalk (18 Oct 2017)

Let's call a spade a spade here. The FSO dropped the ball before Ger Deerings time. In my view they should be barred/removed from any involvement in the examination because of this.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (18 Oct 2017)

Tedtalk said:


> In my view they should be barred/removed from any involvement in the examination because of this.



Brilliant idea. And force everyone who is unhappy with their bank's decision to go to the court.  That will really teach the banks. Drag each case out for another 5 years and put the banks at risk of losing even more money. It's well worth the borrower's risk of losing the case and about €100k in costs to teach the  former Ombudsman such a lesson.

Brendan


----------



## robert 200 (18 Oct 2017)

Brendan ,

On hundreds of occasions on this site you have defended bankers. How do you feel now when it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are thieving thugs ?

They were fully aware that they were making some people homeless by charging them incorrect interest on their mortgage.

My thought for the day - A pick-pocket will steal your wallet but a banker will steal your home ( and there is a good chance that you will acquire a serious illness from the stress of same ).


----------



## Merrilady (18 Oct 2017)

It will be interesting but perhaps futile watching


----------



## SaySomething (18 Oct 2017)

Banking17 said:


> TV 3 Pat Kenny feature at 10 tonight on tracker issue.


At least 2 AAM members will be there to speak about their experiences.


----------



## Tedtalk (18 Oct 2017)

Hi Brendan,

The reason they should be barred is to ensure independence of the review, not any bitterness or any grudge etc. 

There is an inherent risk that using past incorrect views of FSOs office could cause more problems by swaying CB tracker examination staff/team.

They called it wrong in the past and therefore should not have any influence on decisions now.


----------



## peemac (18 Oct 2017)

Tedtalk said:


> Hi Brendan,
> 
> The reason they should be barred is to ensure independence of the review, not any bitterness or any grudge etc.
> 
> ...



And what is the option?

The FSO, just like the Central Bank had quite a change in attitude with new people at the helm.

I don't know the make up of the FSO, but certainly any one who worked within any of the banks should be precluded from investigating bank related matters as they may be biased, but certainly just like Philip Lane in the CB, Ger Deering is a lot more customer focussed than his predesessor.


----------



## todo (18 Oct 2017)

Is the new FSO willing re-look at cases that have already been through the FSO process in the past.

I thought the outcome from the fso process was binding, with the only option being togo to the high court before 21 days, if you were not happy with the outcome.


----------



## moneymakeover (18 Oct 2017)

Todo, I thought ger deering said already he was prepared to re-look at cases previously rejected


----------



## Tedtalk (18 Oct 2017)

Option today has been tabled by the Taoiseach - government is calling the banks in next week which is welcome news. A threat of taxs/penalties from government  is far stronger than whatever FSO or CB can ever do. Well done Leo!!!


----------



## todo (18 Oct 2017)

moneymakeover said:


> Todo, I thought ger deering said already he was prepared to re-look at cases previously rejected



Thanks, Do you know where you saw that?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (18 Oct 2017)

The Central Bank has told the banks to look afresh at all complaints made to the Ombudsman which the Ombudsman rejected. 

It's hard to see a legal basis for the FSO to reopen a case which his office had previously decided upon. 

However, he could do so with the agreement of the lender. 

Brendan


----------



## todo (18 Oct 2017)

Hard to see the lender agreeing, why would they.

We need a mechanism to force them to allow the FSO to take a fresh look. It would be the fair thing todo.


----------



## Tedtalk (18 Oct 2017)

Out of interest, does anyone know if any trackers have been returned during the CB examination process that the FSO previously judged against?


----------



## nonie (18 Oct 2017)

@Tedtalk Yes I know of one for definite... but not mine. Yet.


----------



## BlueButton (19 Oct 2017)

Tedtalk,

We were rejected by our bank and the FSO.  Following the Central Bank review, our lender confirmed we were deemed impacted & put us back on the tracker rate quoted on our original Letter of Offer.  Details are on a previous thread - now waiting for letter confirming redress etc.

*Lost UB tracker; FSOrejected complaint; switched lender and now got our tracker back via CB revie*w

The discounted rate will apply for a period of 1 year from the date of loan issue, but may change within the 1 year discount period (and/or at any time prior to drawdown of the loan). After 1 year your discounted mortgage rate will revert to one of our managed variable rates in line with your LTV at the time of loan issue (this will be 0.50% higher than your discount rate)”).

Congratulations to the 4 extremely courageous and articulate people who spoke to the Finance Committee last week on their own behalf and behalf of so many of us who were denied what is rightfully ours.  They, with Paraic have brought this battle to a new level.

When I read 'The number of mortgage accounts affected by the tracker scandal has risen by 3,100 to 13,000 since March, according to the Central Bank.'  I get so annoyed.  It hasn't risen by that number - that's the additional number the banks/lenders have admitted to ripping off since March ...and it certainly won't stop there !

BlueButton


----------



## MAX01 (19 Oct 2017)

I am one of the 1800 Bank of Ireland staff affected. I won my case with FSO, but when BOI appealed it to the High Court, FSO took the decision to review my case. At that stage, Bill Prafiska was the Ombudsman and surprise surprise he sided with BOI. He ruled against his own Head of Legal Services whom I had spoken to and who had assured me that my case had been examined word by word as he was aware that the decision reached would not only impact me, but a further 1800 staff. He was very confident that the High Court would uphold his ruling. And then, Bill Prafiska steps in!


----------

