# AIB to pay 15% of refund as compensation



## lollipop67 (10 Nov 2016)

Was just talking to person in AIB asking when we might expect to hear from them.  They are still working towards getting letters and cheques out by end Nov.  But my sense from the conversation that was that it could be longer.  However the more interesting information is that the compensation offered is going to be 15% of the total overpayment - so for me that is 15% of €16,681 i.e. €2,500.  We will be given €615 towards independent financial advice or keep if you decide not to seek advice. 

So now, the question is whether 15% is reasonable or do you seek more ????????????? Any thoughts ????????????????


----------



## Wardy7 (10 Nov 2016)

PTSB customers got 10% compensation and €400.00 for independent advice.


----------



## lollipop67 (10 Nov 2016)

That is interesting..............


----------



## Brendan Burgess (10 Nov 2016)

It's not about extracting the maximum amount under threat. 

It's about getting fair compensation. The vast majority of people who have received decisions from the FSO over the years got no compensation. 

Something like 80% of ptsb customers were happy with the 10% and did not bother appealing.

Brendan


----------



## Freshstart (10 Nov 2016)

Sorry Brendan but that is a completely misguided opinion if you are basing that 80% were happy because they didn't bother appealing. The numbers who are heading straight for the high Court are much higher than those who tried the appeals route first.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (10 Nov 2016)

Freshstart said:


> that is a completely misguided opinion if you are basing that 80% were happy because they didn't bother appealing. The numbers who are heading straight for the high Court are much higher than those who tried the appeals route first.



I am sure some people have been badly enough advised to go straight to the High Court instead of exhausting the appeals system. But I very much it's that many.  If it were as many as 100, I would be very surprised. 

I am sure that some of those who had their appeals rejected are going to the High Court, but they are within the 80% number. 

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (10 Nov 2016)

Toledo said:


> Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander springs to mind.



Hi Toledo 

If someone was in arrears due to being overcharged by ptsb, they will should good compensation. 10% would not be nearly enough in my view. I would expect that they account for the 25% or so of successful claims. 

But  from t his...



Toledo said:


> Personally, I would take a punt down the High Court, liability is not an issue, the bank's will probably settle with you for a higher figure to avoid those horrendously high, High Court legal expenses ( I am a betting man ) that they will be left with if you proceeded down the legal route.



I got the impression that you are suggesting that people without much of a case should use the court process to get more than they deserve by threatening ptsb with "horrendously, high High Court expenses". The downside of your argument is that if they haven't got much of a claim, they could end up with having to pay ptsb's expenses, which might be horrendously higher.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (10 Nov 2016)

Toledo said:


> an insurance company will automatically pay out 12,000 euro or more for a whiplash claim, as to legally defend this type of case will cost the insurance company multiples of this figure in legal costs alone.



And in my view, that is totally morally wrong.  It is why my insurance is so high because people are exploiting our dysfunctional courts system. 

If someone has been dragged through the courts due to an error by ptsb or AIB, they deserve more than 10% compensation. 

Most people who have been dragged through the courts would have been in the courts whether they were on trackers or not, because they were paying little or nothing. They deserve no compensation. 

Brendan


----------



## mister32 (10 Nov 2016)

Is 15% good because PTSB only got 10% ?

I don't see the logic

Banks were effectively stealing from people at a time of economic hardship, high unemployment.

If a person missed out on education/ food/ heating why is 15% of the amount sufficient?

It they lost their home: why is 15% sufficient?

If they suffered stress and health problems why should they settle for 15%?


----------



## lollipop67 (11 Nov 2016)

I wasn't dragged through the courts by the bank.  I continued to pay my mortgage as it continued to rise after I went off the fixed rate.  I struggled at times to pay it and obviously had to make cutbacks and make decisions such as renting a room in my house at one point to make ends meet.  So while I haven't as much as some, it certainly wasn't easy.  I certainly don't relish the idea of taking legal action.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (11 Nov 2016)

Let's be absolutely clear about this, as I think that people don't understand how the ptsb compensation scheme worked and how AIB's is likely to work.

1) Everyone got 10% of their refund as compensation as well as a payment for professional advice.  They got this automatically. They didn't have to prove that they deserved it.

2) Anyone who felt that 10% was not enough had a completely free shot of seeking more compensation from ptsb through their Appeals Process. 

If they appealed and were happy with the appeal, then happy days. They had incurred no expenditure and they got a decision quickly.

3) If they were not happy with the Appeals Decision, they were free to go directly to the FSO or the High Court.

Something like 25% of appeals have received additional compensation.  I have only heard of one of them, and they were very happy with the decision. It was a repossession case so it was heard by the Independent Review Panel, which seems to operate more effectively. 

I have not heard of anyone who got additional compensation from the Customer Appeals Panel. I have seen two of their decisions and they were very pooor.  ptsb subsequently offered to correct one of the decisions during the FSO appeals process.

But, I would stress, that the two people I know who got bad decisions, lost nothing, except about 2 months.

Brendan


----------



## Wardy7 (11 Nov 2016)

Toledo said:


> but if the thought of legal action is discomforting



.......discomforting????  More like a massive financial risk.


----------



## Wardy7 (11 Nov 2016)

Totally disagree with that and I have an informed opinion as I'm in the thick of it.

It takes a massive amount of money to pay for High Court Challenge and court is always a risk.  There will always be a chance, be it large or small, that you could lose.  That is the financial risk that we are facing.


----------



## Wardy7 (11 Nov 2016)

Nope!


----------



## Brendan Burgess (11 Nov 2016)

Toledo said:


> Solicitor, barristers will be queuing up to do pro bono ono work, as they are guaranteed payment.



Toledo 

This is dangerously misleading and could result in people being encouraged unnecessarily into the hands of an incompetent legal team. 

I have seen many pro bono cases and they sound fine.  When they get to court, the bank makes a derisory offer and agrees to pay the legal fees.   If they reject the offer, the poor legal team might not get paid anything. If they accept the offer,  the legal team is happy. 

If your case is so wonderful, why don't  you pay a good legal team on a professional basis? Good legal teams are usually way too busy to work on a pro bono basis on a commercial matter. 

There is no such thing as "guarantees" in the legal system. 

If AIB pays you €5,000 compensation and you decide you want €500,000 , and go to the High Court, you will end up with heavy costs.  

Again, I want to stress, that if someone has lost their home, or if they have been through the courts, *as a result of being incorrectly charged the SVR rather than the tracker rate, *they are entitled to more than 15% compensation and they will probably get it from the Appeals System. 

Some, not very busy, members of the legal profession may advise you that you have a case, when they have no understanding of mortgages or the issues involved. 

Exhaust the internal system first. Then go to the Circuit Court or the High Court, by all means. But be prepared for a long wait and a disappointing result. 

Brendan


----------



## Toledo (11 Nov 2016)

Brendan, are you calling solicitors and barrister incompetent, instead of the banks who knowingly tried to slitter out of their contractual obligations to mortgagors and thought they would not be found out, tut tut!

I suppose the choice is essentially an individual one, but 15%; come on, as soon as the bank get served with a High Court summons the compensation will jump. Remember what I said in a previous post about whiplash, the same applies here!


----------



## Brendan Burgess (12 Nov 2016)

Many solicitors and barristers have no understanding at all of mortgages and financial issues.  

If someone considers that their compensation is not adequate, they would be far better off going to someone like Padraic Kissane who can advise them far more effectively. 

Brendan


----------



## Toledo (12 Nov 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Many solicitors and barristers have no understanding at all of mortgages and financial issues.
> 
> If someone considers that their compensation is not adequate, they would be far better off going to someone like Padraic Kissane who can advise them far more effectively.
> 
> Brendan



I believe Padraic Kissane has commenced High Court proceedings against certain banks in this regard. ( rest my case )


----------



## Brendan Burgess (12 Nov 2016)

I believe he has commenced proceedings on a very specific issue, the tracker rate of 3.25%.  In my opinion, he should have appealed it first before going to the court. Again, I would stress that he had nothing to lose by doing so. 

I don't know if he has issued High Court proceedings on any compensation issue. As I have said a few times, it would be very risky.  However, it could be appealed to the Circuit Court with a lot less risk. 

The AIB customers who are put on a prevailing rate of 3.47% should also appeal this, and if unsuccessful, they should go to the High Court. 

Brendan


----------



## Toledo (12 Nov 2016)

I am roughly in broad agreement with you, but from experience I have found that there is nothing like a High Court summons to focus a large organisation's mindset, with a view to entering earnest discussions with the other party.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (12 Nov 2016)

You are assuming that AIB does not want to enter earnest discussions, before you have even seen the redress programme. 

Wait until you see it. Wait until you see the composition of the Independent Appeals Panels. But, I will say again, even if you don't like the composition of the Appeals Panels, you have nothing to lose by appealing to them first. 

Brendan


----------



## Toledo (12 Nov 2016)

"AIB to offer 15% of refund as compensation" is the title of the thread, not adequate in my opinion, but that is only my opinion. You are right with regard to seeing just what the redress programme has to offer affected mortgagors.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (12 Nov 2016)

Toledo said:


> "AIB to offer 15% of refund as compensation" is the title of the thread,



Hi Toledo

That is not the title of the thread. Nor is it what AIB is doing.

AIB is going to pay 15% of the refund to everyone as compensation.  That is going to be paid whether or not a person feels that they have suffered any loss.

Then those affected will be free to seek more.

Brendan


----------



## Toledo (12 Nov 2016)

Sorry Brendan, the thread is "AIB to pay 15% of refund as compensation " yippee, all affected, count your blessings !


----------



## mister32 (20 Nov 2016)

Sunday times has the story

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/aib-draws-up-large-compensation-deal-s60mbjm9v


----------



## mister32 (20 Nov 2016)

Article says customers in the first round of redress are expected to be those who fixed mortgage rates temporarily after march 2006


----------



## lollipop67 (22 Nov 2016)

Latest update.  Another letter from AIB yesterday basically apologizing for delay and saying that during December and January they will be in a position to provide customers with details of repayments, compensation, financial summary, details of appeal process, explanation of failure etc etc.  Better cancel that Christmas I'd planned


----------



## FOODLOVER!! (22 Nov 2016)

lollipop67 said:


> Latest update.  Another letter from AIB yesterday basically apologizing for delay and saying that during December and January they will be in a position to provide customers with details of repayments, compensation, financial summary, details of appeal process, explanation of failure etc etc.  Better cancel that Christmas I'd planned


 I got the same one. I was convinced I would have the money by the end of this month, hopefully the next letter will have a cheque inside it!!!


----------



## lollipop67 (28 Nov 2016)

I note that my mortgage repayment has been reduced again for November - about €30 less - this would seem to be taking account of the fact that AIB are retaining about €6k of the overpayment and paying it off the capital.


----------

