# If you have been deemed "not impacted" is it the end of the line for you?



## Brendan Burgess (19 Jul 2019)

Anyone who got a redress letter can appeal to the Independent Appeals Panel, the Ombudsman or the High Court.

But what if you did not get a redress letter? What if the bank told you that you had no case.

Apart from the individual cases, there are some cohorts:

For example, PTSB “Discounted tracker”. They were charged a margin of 0.6% for the first year when the prevailing ptsb tracker rate was 0.8%. But when the year was up, they were charged 3.25%.


Ptsb has said that they were not impacted. 
The Central Bank has agreed.

It’s the end of the line for them. They can’t go to the Ombudsman as they are outside the time limits – it’s over 6 years since the behaviour complained of occurred and 3 years since they should have become aware of it.

So unless the Oireachtas changes the time limit to 12 years, then they are snookered.

By way of comparison, AIB argued all along that the Prevailing Rate cohort were not impacted. They argue that if they had been offered a tracker rate, it would have been so high, that it would have cost them money. As a result, they were not impacted. The Central Bank forced AIB to acknowledge a "service failure" and so these 6,000 customers are in the Appeals System.

Likewise, the ptsb customers who broke out of the fixed rate early and were not offered a tracker rate. Now they have been offered compensation based on a margin of 3.25%.  They are furious with this, but they can go to the Appeals Panel, Ombudsman or High Court and let them decide.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (19 Jul 2019)

I think that these are the main "not impacted" cohorts

Charlie Weston's list:
:: Around 700 cases at Ulster Bank where customers did not start their mortgage on a tracker. They subsequently went on a tracker rate, but then fixed. After that they were denied a tracker;

:: Up to 300 cases at KBC where existing customers were denied a tracker after fixing;

:: Between 200 and 300 cases at Danske Bank where the lender has refused to restore some borrowers to a tracker;

:: Roughly 200 cases of staff and former staff at Bank of Ireland who say documents they have clearly show they should have trackers.

Some additional ones:

EBS Discounted Trackers


----------



## TrackerThieves (19 Jul 2019)

Brendan Burgess said:


> If EBS is very confident, they might not invoke the statute of limitations.


This got me thinking
I was originally worried by the statue of limitation until Padraic had said it would not be an issue because the statute of limitations did not apply to the tracker examination. This came into effect a few years back. 
Quote from central bank documentation
"3. Application of the Statute of Limitations The Statute of Limitations does not apply to the Central Bank’s powers to enforce compliance with regulatory requirements including those relevant to this Examination and does not negate lenders’ obligations to comply with the relevant regulatory requirements set out by the Central Bank." 
Any idea how this affects the cases now with the ombudsman especially the individual cases not picked up by the investigation?
Does it only apply to cases where the  central bank could or would have intervened?
Could it still be interpreted that it could apply to all tracker cases?


----------



## tnegun (19 Jul 2019)

AIB said at their last appearance before the finance committee that they would waive the statue of limitations. So I assume this applies to EBS too?
Ms Helan Dooley said "On the last point, we have waived our rights with regard to the Statute of Limitations for the tracker population."


----------



## Dazzler123 (19 Jul 2019)

All the banks have agreed not to defend legal proceedings using the statute of limitations apparently.


----------



## Gimmestrength (21 Jul 2019)

On a recent Irish Times "Inside Business" podcast (https://www.irishtimes.com/business/business-podcast) at around 38 mins Brendan said those who were told by a bank they were not impacted are "now completely snookered". He went on to  say: "They can't go to the ombudsman because it is statute barred and they can't go to the High Court because it is statute barred.

"They were refused a tracker.... they're complaining about something that happened maybe 10 years ago and the time limit is 6 years so they're completely and utterly snookered".

This is not the case and I believe these comments and comments like them may encourage people with a potential tracker case not to take that case, thereby letting banks away with fraud.

Remember it is in the Central Bank's interest and the banks' interest to now draw a line under this issue and comments to the effect that the Central Bank report published last week marks the end of the road for people (i.e. if you were not already deemed impacted / redressed) are dangerous and will potentially let the banks get away with this.

Some things to note, in addition to what people have already said here in relation to banks waiving the statute.

1. The Central Bank, while arguably in its final report has abandoned those in dispute with banks over trackers, says individuals who are in dispute can take their case to the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman (FSPO) and ultimately to the High Court.
2. Paidraic Kissane who is the leading expert on this issue and without whom this scandal would probably not have been exposed has said there are 10,000 cases outstanding that have not yet been admitted by the banks. He has previously said that he has concerns that banks with their vast legal teams will start trying to argue statute of limitations on tracker cases. However he is still pursing many cases through the FSPO.
3. The FSPO said in March 2019 in its review of 2018: "Significant changes to the time limits for making a complaint to the Financial Services Ombudsman were made by the Oireachtas in July 2017. These changes were carried over to the FSPO as per Section 51 of the Act. As a result, any complaint about a “long-term financial service”, can now be made not only within a period of six years of the date of the conduct complained of, but also within a period of three years of a certain “date of knowledge” as prescribed within the Act. In addition, the Ombudsman has a statutory discretion, regarding such complaints, to extend the time if there are reasonable grounds for requiring a longer period and it would be just and equitable in all the circumstances to do so." Date of knowledge is when you realised that you were being overcharged. The fact that the overcharging started 10 years ago or more is not relevant if you only discovered last week, last year or whatever.
4. Remember the concept of "cohorts" of those impacted has been a handy way of ring-fencing this issue for the banks. However just because you are not part of a defined cohort does not mean you were not defrauded. If I go into a shop and steal a bicycle it is theft. It isn't any less of a theft if I am the first person to steal a bike from a shop!

And don't ever forget this is fraud, potentially and probably ongoing fraud.

This is NOT over. 10 years ago people were told they hadn't a case and were later redressed and compensated. It may be convenient for the Central bank, the banks (and their cheerleaders and proxys) to say this is over, move on, but we will continue to fight - by using the strength of our numbers and with the help of the likes of Padraic Kissane.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (21 Jul 2019)

If you were not deemed impacted, you are out of time to complain to the Ombudsman or take a High Court case.

However, they should still make a complaint to the Ombudsman.  The Ombudsman will decide if he can hear it or not.  My understanding is that his default position is that he will hear the complaint. But if the bank objects, then he can go no further.

I understood that the bank's statements apply to those deemed impacted.  But maybe the banks are happy enough for all cases, impacted or not, go to the Ombudsman. In fact, I suspect that the different banks will handle this differently.



Gimmestrength said:


> And don't ever forget this is fraud, potentially and probably ongoing fraud.



I must say I had forgotten. Could you please link to the court case where someone was convicted of fraud?  

If you have any evidence of fraud, then go to the Garda.  If the Central Bank uncovered any evidence, they would have stepped back from the case and handed it to the Garda. Luckily for the victims, they Central Bank found no evidence of fraud.

And by the way, as fraud is a crime, there is no statute of limitations. So if you have evidence of fraud, you are not statute barred. I am not sure of the process, but I think you have to prove the fraud first. And the standard for fraud, as it's a criminal matter, is beyond reasonable doubt.

Brendan


----------



## TrackerThieves (21 Jul 2019)

Statute of limitations
Postponement of limitation period in case of fraud.

71.— (1) Where, in the case of an action for which a period of limitation is fixed by this Act, either—

( a) the action is based on the fraud of the defendant or his agent or of any person through whom he claims or his agent, or

( b) the right of action is concealed by the fraud of any such person,

the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall enable an action to be brought to recover, or enforce any charge against, or set aside any transaction affecting, any property which has been purchased for valuable consideration by a person who was not a party to the fraud and did not at the time of the purchase know or have reason to believe that any fraud had been committed.

Postponement of limitation period in case of mistake.

72.— (1) Where, in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is fixed by this Act, the action is for relief from the consequences of mistake, the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the mistake or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall enable any action to be brought to recover, or enforce any charge against, or set aside any transaction affecting, any property which has been purchased for valuable consideration, subsequently to the transaction in which the mistake was made, by a person who did not know or have reason to believe that the mistake was made.The statute of limitations in the case of mistake or fraud will only begin from when the mistake or fraud was first discovered.


In my case Padraic wrote to EBS in 2015 telling them the tracker offered to me in 2008 was to be honored and backdated. I would imagine since the mistake/fraud was discovered in 2015 I have till 2021 to take my case? could anyone clarify this?
I think since the FSPO was not taking tracker cases for the last few years and the tracker examination was not looking at individual cases, something must be done to protect any individual that is now time barred but would not have been if case was taken in the last few years. We literally had no options to take a case until the tracker examination finished.


----------



## Gimmestrength (21 Jul 2019)

Brendan just because there hasn't been a conviction or the central bank didn't uncover any evidence of fraud does not mean there was not a criminal offence of fraud or theft perpetrated. 

More is the pity there has not been any accountability through the courts for this scandal and let's hope there is at some stage. The redress of those who were overcharged/defrauded/stolen from ( pick whatever word you like) and the discovery of a criminal offence are not mutually exclusive. 

On the statute of limitations it is not as clear cut as you make out so please stop telling people this is over when it is not. if I discover today I was overcharged 10 years ago i can take a case within three years. Where the FSO has not been progressing tracker cases while the CB examination  continued also adds another dimension.  

This is NOT over


----------



## Gimmestrength (21 Jul 2019)

Also if an overcharge continues to this day, which it would in most disputed cases, and legislation dictates that a case can be taken to the FSPO within 6 years of the conduct complained of, then there is likely to be no issue in taking cases to the FSPO.


----------



## Dazzler123 (21 Jul 2019)

If you have been deemed not impacted, the Statute of Limitations does indeed snooker you.  

The Banks have taken a view that they will not rely on the Statute to avoid liability for impacted cases but I don't believe that there is any such promise for non-impacted cases.  I agree with Brendan Burgess on this in that for non-impacted cases, they will rely on the Statute of Limitations, particularly if there is a glut of non-impacted breach of contract cases as this will be a simple method of disposing of multiple cases.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (21 Jul 2019)

Gimmestrength said:


> Also if an overcharge continues to this day, which it would in most disputed cases, and legislation dictates that a case can be taken to the FSPO within 6 years of the conduct complained of, then there is likely to be no issue in taking cases to the FSPO.



Hi Gimmestrength

I have used that argument before in non-tracker issues but it got nowhere. The Ombudsman and the Court do not seem to accept it.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (21 Jul 2019)

Gimmestrength said:


> Brendan just because there hasn't been a conviction or the central bank didn't uncover any evidence of fraud does not mean there was not a criminal offence of fraud or theft perpetrated.



Hi Gimme

A cornerstone of our legal system is that someone is presumed innocent until a court finds them guilty.

I have seen no evidence of fraud. I have heard no reports of evidence of fraud.

But I would encourage you and anyone else with such evidence to report it to the Garda.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (21 Jul 2019)

I think that the best thing for people who are affected by this is to lobby their politicians. 

Get the Ombudsman's limit changed to 12 years.  That would cover almost all tracker cases. 

Brendan


----------



## TrackerThieves (21 Jul 2019)

EBS - EBS - Offered a tracker  the day the were stopped
					

I just want to mention Pardaic is already dealing with this tracker issue. I am mostly posting because of subsequent issues in relation to our account and unsure who deals with them and how serious they actually are. I am also curious if the were others in this situation and and the outcome...



					www.askaboutmoney.com
				



Details of my tracker case are here
Where does the statute of limitation leave me?
my argument would be the the mistake was only discover in 2015 and am still being overcharged


----------



## Dazzler123 (21 Jul 2019)

TrackerThieves said:


> EBS - EBS - Offered a tracker  the day the were stopped
> 
> 
> I just want to mention Pardaic is already dealing with this tracker issue. I am mostly posting because of subsequent issues in relation to our account and unsure who deals with them and how serious they actually are. I am also curious if the were others in this situation and and the outcome...
> ...



You applied for a tracker rate in 2008 and you were refused as between the time that you posted the form and them making a decision, the Bank pulled trackers as a product? 

That being the case, you should have issued proceedings for specific performance within the 6 year statute of limitations.  Regardless of whether the form was an application form or acceptance of an offer, it doesn't make any difference.  The Statute of Limitations applies from the date on which you should have gone on to the tracker rate.


----------



## TrackerThieves (21 Jul 2019)

When I heard that EBS had stopped offering trackers I rang and was told by a local branch manager that the offer was no longer valid as the product was no longer on the market and I did not return the signed documents. I now know this was not true. Although it will be difficult to prove as this was over the phone I do have evidence that backs this up. It was not until I contacted Padraic in 2015 that I was sure he was wrong, whether mistakenly or purposely would I not have a case that the time only begins from 2015?


----------



## Gimmestrength (22 Jul 2019)

If people think the have a case they should take it to the ombudsman and not be discouraged  because Brendan or someone else here thinks the statute of limitations might apply. I have a different interpretation  of it than he has. 

 It will be for the FSO to decide if it does apply, if and when it becomes an issue and ultimately for the courts. Get representation and go to the FSO. This is NOT over.


----------



## Gimmestrength (22 Jul 2019)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Gimme
> 
> A cornerstone of our legal system is that someone is presumed innocent until a court finds them guilty.
> 
> ...


Hi Brendan,
(The fraud issue maybe needs a new thread...)
I am not suggesting otherwise. The presumption of innocence remains whether or not there have been prosecutions yet or not or whether or not I or anyone else believes a fraud took place. It is a given, and raising it within the context of this discussion is therefore a red herring. 

Again, just because you have not seen or heard evidence is not in itself evidence of anything. The Central Bank examination framework was not conceived as a criminal inquiry, rather as a means to get the banks to themselves identify impacted customers which they did kicking and screaming. And there are more cases.  

its remit was not to assemble evidence for a prosecution.... similar in ways to how Tribunals of inquiry worked. However it does not mean a prosecution should not or cannot follow and I would encourage the CB to forward the final report to the Gardai for examination. They may find there is not evidence to prosecute but again it doesn't mean a fraud or theft hasn't taken place. You are right that in the absence of any such evidence nobody is criminally responsible. 

On reporting, It is hardly for an individual to report it to gardai but maybe that would help too. 

The issue of whether a criminal action (knowingly denying people what was rightfully theres) took place has come up before, by the way https://www.irishtimes.com/news/cri...arges-against-tracker-scandal-banks-1.3262366

Ok have to head to work to pay those rip off interest rates. Good luck !


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Jul 2019)

Brendan Burgess said:


> However, they should still make a complaint to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman will decide if he can hear it or not. My understanding is that his default position is that he will hear the complaint. But if the bank objects, then he can go no further.





Gimmestrength said:


> If people think the have a case they should take it to the ombudsman and not be discouraged because Brendan or someone else here thinks the statute of limitations might apply.



Hi Gimme

We are in agreement that people should complain whether or not they are statute barred. 

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what you or I think.

If the Ombudsman decides that you are statute barred, then it's the end of the line, unless you want to challenge that decision in the High Court.

If the Ombudsman decides to hear your case, then it's up to the lender to challenge that it is statute barred. I  understand that some will challenge it and others are happy to let the complaint be heard - especially if the lender is confident of winning.

Brendan


----------



## demoivre (22 Jul 2019)

Dazzler123 said:


> If you have been deemed not impacted, the Statute of Limitations does indeed snooker you.



I can see how that would be the case for a mortgage that has been fully paid off more than six years ago.  I can't for the life of me see how it applies to an active contract ie where monthly mortgage payments are currently being made. If someone has a problem with their active mortgage contract today, be it tracker related or otherwise, they take it up with the lender. If the issue can't be resolved they go to the FSO or the courts..


----------



## Dazzler123 (22 Jul 2019)

demoivre said:


> I can see how that would be the case for a mortgage that has been fully paid off more than six years ago.  I can't for the life of me see how it applies to an active contract ie where monthly mortgage payments are currently being made. If someone has a problem with their active mortgage contract today, be it tracker related or otherwise, they take it up with the lender. If the issue can't be resolved they go to the FSO or the courts..



If you sought a tracker and were refused but were contractually entitled to one... then your cause of action accrued when you were refused. You have six years to sue thereafter.  

If you were not offered a tracker when that was an option that should have been open to you...that is most likely not a breach of contract, rather a breach of consumer legislation. 

Unless the CBI can force the  banks to admit more cohorts, those who have been deemed not impacted are going to face an uphill struggle if the banks wish to rely on the statute of lkmitations.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Jul 2019)

Dazzler

I agree with you that this is the way the Ombudsman and the Court interpret the six year rule.

But this is what the Act says 

(5) For the purpose of subsections (3) and (4), conduct that is of a continuing nature is taken to have occurred at the time when it stopped and conduct that consists of a series of acts or omissions is taken to have occurred when the last of those acts or omissions occurred.

Let's say that I have mortgage protection insurance with my lender and it's €100 a month. But since I took it out 10 years ago, they have been charging me €100 twice each month. A pure clerical error.  

They could argue that the error happened 10 years ago and therefore was statute barred. 

I would argue that as it's still occurring, the 6 year time limit has not started. 

So, if I have a contract which says that mortgage rate after the fixed rate period will be ECB +1%. 

The fixed rate period ended 10 years ago. But they are charging me the SVR today. Can I not argue, that the conduct complained of is of a continuing nature and so the 6 years doesn't start until they stop charging me the SVR? 

It's some years and a previous Ombudsman since I have argued this but I got nowhere.

Brendan


----------



## Dazzler123 (22 Jul 2019)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Dazzler
> 
> I agree with you that this is the way the Ombudsman and the Court interpret the six year rule.
> 
> ...



If you were explicitly to automatically revert to a tracker rate then i would agree with that interpretation.  You will face a defence based on your delay but you may not be statute barred. But as i understand it, those cases have been deemed impacted.  If you had to take some action to avail of a tracker rate or if you were to revert automatically to a rate that was not explicitly a tracker, or if you were not given the option of a tracker...you would be statute barred.

The FSPO is entitled to overlook the statute but i dont believe they will as you will have the banks judicially reviewing those decisions.


----------



## Johnc6 (22 Jul 2019)

Time limits for complaints to Ombudsman:

Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman Act 2017
51. (1) A complaint in relation to conduct referred to in section 44 (1)(a) that does not relate to a long-term financial service shall be made to the Ombudsman not later than 6 years from the date of the conduct giving rise to the complaint.

(2) A complaint in relation to—

(a) conduct referred to in section 44 (1)(a) that, subject to the requirements specified in subsection (3), relates to a long-term financial service, or

(b) conduct referred to in section 44 (1)(b), that is subject to the requirements specified in subsection (4),

shall be made to the Ombudsman within whichever of the following periods is the last to expire:

(i) 6 years from the date of the conduct giving rise to the complaint;

(ii) 3 years from the earlier of the date on which the person making the complaint became aware, or ought reasonably to have become aware, of the conduct giving rise to the complaint;

(iii)  such longer period as the Ombudsman may allow where it appears to him or her that there are reasonable grounds for requiring a longer period and that it would be just and equitable, in all the circumstances, to so extend the period. 

The FSPO can extend the time limit as per section (iii)


----------



## notabene (31 Jul 2019)

Brendan Burgess said:


> If you were not deemed impacted, you are out of time to complain to the Ombudsman or take a High Court case.
> 
> However, they should still make a complaint to the Ombudsman.  The Ombudsman will decide if he can hear it or not.  My understanding is that his default position is that he will hear the complaint. But if the bank objects, then he can go no further.
> 
> ...



No statue of limitations for fraud, but after having a detailed conversation with a Guard on the fraud squad in Harcourt st in Aug 2016, extremely difficult to prove intent, short of a whistle blower, near impossible & also spoke to ODCE and similar story, burden of proof v high before they will consider a case - both understandable, needs to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and only one chance to do it in each case not to mention the cost of such cases if unsuccessful


----------



## Dazzler123 (31 Jul 2019)

notabene said:


> No statue of limitations for fraud, but after having a detailed conversation with a Guard on the fraud squad in Harcourt st in Aug 2016, extremely difficult to prove intent, short of a whistle blower, near impossible & also spoke to ODCE and similar story, burden of proof v high before they will consider a case - both understandable, needs to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and only one chance to do it in each case not to mention the cost of such cases if unsuccessful



There is no statute of limitations for criminal proceedings. However, if you wish to take a civil action the statute of limitations will run from when the fraud was discovered or from when it could have been discovered with reasonable diligence. 

It is open to the bank to argue that such fraud could have been discovered reasonably a long time ago so you will have a high hurdle to cross even if you can prove fraud.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (18 Aug 2019)

*Many tracker mortgage complaints may be outside time limit*
_
The Ombudsman is dealing with 1,141 complaints at present.

Of these, he said 103 are being assessed with regard to whether or not they fall outside the statutory time limit, but he expects this number to increase.

"My best estimate at this state is that a time limit assessment will most likely be required on over 400 of those complaints."

Mr Deering said that some banks are "rigorously challenging the jurisdiction of this office to deal with complaints where there is a question in relation to whether the complaint was made outside the time limits."
He pointed out that other banks are not doing so._


----------



## TrackerThieves (19 Aug 2019)

*Banks use time limit to challenge tracker mortgage complaints to Ombudsman*








						Banks use time limit to challenge tracker mortgage complaints to Ombudsman
					

Ombudsman Ger Deering said up to 500 customers could be affected by these challenges.




					www.thejournal.ie


----------



## Brendan Burgess (19 Aug 2019)

This bit is particularly interesting. I was wondering how the 3 year time limit wasn't coming into play.

_Deering said the Oireachtas made a legislative change in 2017 known which also introduced a “date of knowledge” limit. This means in addition to the six-year period from the date of the conduct, there is also the possibility of a customer making a complaint within three years of them becoming aware of alleged misconduct.

He said the “sad irony” is that some lenders are using this clause, which was designed to help consumers, to argue against the investigation of these complaints.

Some of the customers involved contacted their banks years ago to say they believed they should be on a tracker mortgage – their banks are now arguing they were aware of the misconduct at this time and could have made a complaint then._

So if someone did not raise the issue at the time because they were not aware of it, they can now make a complaint to the Ombudsman as they are within the three year time limit.

However, if they queried it 8 years ago, they would be out of time now. 

Brendan


----------



## skinnylegs (19 Aug 2019)

Brendan Burgess said:


> This bit is particularly interesting. I was wondering how the 3 year time limit wasn't coming into play.
> 
> _Deering said the Oireachtas made a legislative change in 2017 known which also introduced a “date of knowledge” limit. This means in addition to the six-year period from the date of the conduct, there is also the possibility of a customer making a complaint within three years of them becoming aware of alleged misconduct.
> 
> ...


Over to you Paschal


----------



## Dazzler123 (19 Aug 2019)

Brendan Burgess said:


> This bit is particularly interesting. I was wondering how the 3 year time limit wasn't coming into play.
> 
> _Deering said the Oireachtas made a legislative change in 2017 known which also introduced a “date of knowledge” limit. This means in addition to the six-year period from the date of the conduct, there is also the possibility of a customer making a complaint within three years of them becoming aware of alleged misconduct.
> 
> ...



I figured that they would do this for cases deemed as not impacted under the CBI examination.  I believe the three year time limit refers to when they could reasonably have discovered the issue.  Im not sure when, with all the media coverage, would the date be that a person could have reasonably discovered they had a potential tracker issue.


----------



## TrackerThieves (21 Aug 2019)

https://soundcloud.com/kfmradiokildare/kildare-today-20-08-19-hour-2
		

Ombudsman Ger Deering's interview from yesterday. Discusses that some banks are challenging the statute of limitations in relation to tracker cases. Also mentions that he can use his own discretion to increase the time limit depending on the specifics details of each case.
Copied from another thread as its relevant here.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (21 Aug 2019)

Here is a transcript of what he said: 

The people who were deemed not impacted by the banks are most affected by the time limits
Some banks have taken the approach of not challenging the time limits
However there are strict time limits set down in the legislation and it’s complex
One limit is 6 years after the conduct complained about occurred
3 years after you ought to be aware
If the bank challenges those time limits under the legislation and the evidence supports their view, I cannot investigate that complaint.  
There are circumstances where I can extend that time limit at my discretion but there has to be a reason and it it has to be just and equitable to both parties
Eg if someone was ill over a significant period or  there was no reason they would have been aware of it. But in many cases there are no such circumstances and in those cases, the three years and six years apply to them.


----------



## TrackerThieves (25 Aug 2019)

Lenders expected to row back after rebuke from ombudsman over tracker mortgage complaints https://jrnl.ie/4777808


----------



## Brendan Burgess (25 Aug 2019)

Very interesting article which highlights that BoI was probably the only lender to invoke the time limits. And they have now changed their policy on this. 

KBC's answer is too ambiguous. 

_KBC said it is “determined to secure the best outcomes for all customers impacted by the tracker examination”.

“The application of any aspect of the relevant legislation relating to customer complaints rests with the office of the FSPO and we work openly and constructively with them.”
_


----------



## Gimmestrength (26 Aug 2019)

KBC said today it will NOT use time limit to challenge ombudsman complaints. The Irish Times has the article here https://www.irishtimes.com/business...ion-on-tracker-mortgage-time-limits-1.3997537


----------

