# Appealing to Ombudsman



## Jameson999 (15 Aug 2018)

Quick question about appealing to the ombudsman about compensation offered through Secretariat. Has anyone went down this line? We appealed after being granted €7000 compensation but feel that this is inadequate given property has gone up in value by circa €50k since we were forced to sell in 2014. Rental income above the correct mortgage amount for the time since we sold would have been circa €30k being conservative. This 2 bed property was previously our family home but we held on to it between 2009 and 2014 after we moved due to family needs. Anyway we have just began mediation process and have been asked to come up with what we think would be a fair settlement amount? The crux of the whole matter is that we were forced to sell when being charged the incorrect amount, rental income did not cover the mortgage and rental expenses. Mortgage was 912 when we sold and should have bee less than 600, rental income was 950. Any thoughts?


----------



## PFS7979 (15 Aug 2018)

Hi Jameson,

May I ask, did you go through the Central Back Tracker "Appeal Panel" before you went to the Ombudsmans Office?

In our case, we were turned down by Appeal Panel but retain option of courts or Ombudsman. I really feel the Appeals Panel decision took advantage of our inability to put a clear figure on our loss, rather than actually examining the adequacy of redress paid. Put differently, I think we were turned down for quality of how case was presented rather than the facts.

Your comment regarding calculating an actual figure makes sense as we didnt do this on our appeal to central bank panel. Equally.. the panel/secretariat did not invite us to argue our point in that manner.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (15 Aug 2018)

PFS7979 said:


> he Central Back Tracker "Appeal Panel"



Just to be clear...

Each lender has its own Independent Appeals Panel.  It is not a Central Bank panel other than the fact that the CB told them to set it up.

Brendan


----------



## deansmith27 (15 Aug 2018)

Jameson999 said:


> Quick question about appealing to the ombudsman about compensation offered through Secretariat. Has anyone went down this line? We appealed after being granted €7000 compensation but feel that this is inadequate given property has gone up in value by circa €50k since we were forced to sell in 2014. Rental income above the correct mortgage amount for the time since we sold would have been circa €30k being conservative. This 2 bed property was previously our family home but we held on to it between 2009 and 2014 after we moved due to family needs. Anyway we have just began mediation process and have been asked to come up with what we think would be a fair settlement amount? The crux of the whole matter is that we were forced to sell when being charged the incorrect amount, rental income did not cover the mortgage and rental expenses. Mortgage was 912 when we sold and should have bee less than 600, rental income was 950. Any thoughts?



Check out this thread for reference https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threa...ing-compensation-for-tracker-mortgage.206992/

I am in the exact same boat as you except no offer of compensation/not deemed impacted yet. Had to sell house in 2014 under voluntary sale for loss. If on the tracker would of paid 430 euro less per month.


----------



## Jameson999 (15 Aug 2018)

The way it works is that the mediator goes back to bank and lets them know my thoughts, he will go back with figure I suggest and see do bank agree first of all if there should be any additional comp and then if the figure I suggest is in the ballpark. If we are at total odds and cannot agree on anything then mediation is ended and a binding decision can be made by ombudsman adjudicator. The decision maker does not get to hear what went on in mediation. I feel I should be compensated for substantial amount given the sums involved and the stress caused


----------



## Brendan Burgess (15 Aug 2018)

Jameson 

Did you appeal using the Independent Appeals Panel? 

If so, they should have issued you with a  decision which would help you frame your complaint to the Ombudsman.

Brendan


----------



## Jameson999 (16 Aug 2018)

yes already received €7000 comp from them , just feel it is way short of what it should be, hence brought to ombudsman


----------



## PFS7979 (16 Aug 2018)

By Central Bank Panel; I mean the panel set up on direction of the Central Bank. I am aware this panel are not staffed by Central Bank.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (16 Aug 2018)

Jameson999 said:


> yes already received €7000 comp from them , just feel it is way short of what it should be,



Hi Jameson 

Did they explain how they came at this amount? 

Was this on top of an automatic payment? If so, how much was that? 

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (16 Aug 2018)

What is the basis for your argument that you were _forced _to sell?



Jameson999 said:


> This 2 bed property was previously our family home but we held on to it between 2009 and 2014 after we moved due to family needs.



So you moved in 2009 due to your family needs. So you did not vacate it because of the loss of the tracker. 



Jameson999 said:


> Mortgage was 912 when we sold and should have bee less than 600, rental income was 950. Any thoughts?



The rental income exceeded the mortgage cost.  So I can't see how you can argue that you were _forced _to sell. 

If I had a rental property where the interest was €2,000 a month and the rent was €1,500, I would probably sell it. 

If I had a rental property where the interest was €1,000 a month and the rent was €1,500, I would probably keep it.

So you could argue that had they charged you the right rate, it would have been a profitable rental property and you would have kept it. 

But if you argue that you were forced to sell it, then I think you are arguing incorrectly and it's likely that the Ombudsman will reject your argument. 



Brendan


----------



## Bronte (16 Aug 2018)

If his mortgage should have been 600 instead of 912 on a rental income of 950 then he was probably forced into having to sell as even though in both cases the rent is highter than the mortgage he would have needed to fund a shortfall in the case of the 912 mortgage amount.  His tax on rental might be in the order of 50% for example.


----------



## Bronte (16 Aug 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> The rental income exceeded the mortgage cost.  So I can't see how you can argue that you were _forced _to sell.
> 
> If I had a rental property where the interest was €2,000 a month and the rent was €1,500, I would probably sell it.
> 
> ...



That might be what you might do, other landlords do not view it that way.  Just saying.  One would need to know all costs and circumstances.


----------



## Bronte (16 Aug 2018)

Jameson999 said:


> Quick question about appealing to the ombudsman about compensation offered through Secretariat. Has anyone went down this line? We appealed after being granted €7000 compensation but feel that this is inadequate given property has gone up in value by circa €50k since we were forced to sell in 2014. Rental income above the correct mortgage amount for the time since we sold would have been circa €30k being conservative. This 2 bed property was previously our family home but we held on to it between 2009 and 2014 after we moved due to family needs. Anyway we have just began mediation process and have been asked to come up with what we think would be a fair settlement amount? The crux of the whole matter is that we were forced to sell when being charged the incorrect amount, rental income did not cover the mortgage and rental expenses. Mortgage was 912 when we sold and should have bee less than 600, rental income was 950. Any thoughts?



What triggered the sale in 2014?  Can you demonstrate that you could and would have held onto it had the mortgage been at the correct amount of 600.

Or: When you moved out in 2009 were you able to pay the difference between the rental income and all other costs (repairs, tax, mortgage etc).

Can you give us the figures on year of purchase, price, value in 2009, value in 2016 etc.  And mortgage outstanding at those times. To have a picture of what actually happened.


----------



## Jameson999 (17 Aug 2018)

we were able to keep the house initially after moving because the difference in mortgage and rent was a small income to us, at time when we sold holding the house was a net cost to us, this is what forced us to sell, we could not afford to keep the house. If mortgage was charged at correct amount then we would have had a net income, hence it was profitable and we could afford to keep it. In an attempt to keep the property we were on an interest only mortgage in the year before sale, when the interest only period was up we had to immediately sell.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (17 Aug 2018)

Jameson999 said:


> In an attempt to keep the property we were on an interest only mortgage in the year before sale, when the interest only period was up we had to immediately sell.



You have not given the numbers, so I am just giving these as an illustration. 






The typical difference between a tracker and SVR would be around €250  a month.

The typical difference between a full repayment and interest only would be around €500 a month.

So it suggests to me that even if you had a tracker, you might not have been able to make the full repayments.

I am guessing in the absence of the information, that the Appeals Panel considered all these issues.  However, if you want to provide the full story,  we can give our views. 

Brendan


----------



## Jameson999 (17 Aug 2018)

The Tracker rate should have been at ECB +0.75% (ie 0.9%) , we were on 4.89% from March 2013 until Dec 2014 when we sold, difference in interest charged was over €530 per month as per the notice from bank showing interest charged and what should have been charged if correct rate applied.
The reduced mortgage was €790 for the final year before we went back on to full payments of €912.


----------



## deansmith27 (19 Aug 2018)

Jameson999 said:


> Quick question about appealing to the ombudsman about compensation offered through Secretariat. Has anyone went down this line? We appealed after being granted €7000 compensation but feel that this is inadequate given property has gone up in value by circa €50k since we were forced to sell in 2014. Rental income above the correct mortgage amount for the time since we sold would have been circa €30k being conservative. This 2 bed property was previously our family home but we held on to it between 2009 and 2014 after we moved due to family needs. Anyway we have just began mediation process and have been asked to come up with what we think would be a fair settlement amount? The crux of the whole matter is that we were forced to sell when being charged the incorrect amount, rental income did not cover the mortgage and rental expenses. Mortgage was 912 when we sold and should have bee less than 600, rental income was 950. Any thoughts?



Jameson999

When you say forced to sell do you mean you didn't agree and the house went into receivership or you agreed through a voluntary sale for loss scheme?

Were you bound to pay the residual debt or was this written off when the house sold?


----------



## WizardDr (28 Aug 2018)

I think this demonstrates the difficulty people have in weaving through the Appeals structures on their own.

The Panels usually have:
- a lawyer
- an accountant
- 'customer advocate'.

The lawyers are often at least Partners in medium sized firms;
The accountants have often been involved with their Institutes / Assocaition
Not clear where the Customer Advocates arrive from.

On a loss of property some banks will state something along the lines that 'our mistake may/may not have led to the sale of property'.
If 'not our fault' one would have to establish that it was.

To me that would hinge on the financial situation primarily but it needs a good deal of work.

Given that the Panels are in the place of a court, they do adopt court like approaches which is demonstrably unfair as you have to 'prove' matters but they are considerate.  You can see the problems with lay litigants in the Courts ..why is it expected to be different with Appeals?

For if you do not establish the 'but for test' as in here is why it was the Banks fault ..then the increased value of the property after the sale and all the rental arguments will end up in the bin. Also the weasel Banks adopt a 'foreseeable' argument and that helps bin all the emotional matters. 

If you pursue this with FSPO you will still have to do the homework. Bear in mind that the FSPO does have a reputation to restore - but you still have the difficulty of establishing the 'but for test'.


----------



## deansmith27 (17 Sep 2018)

Jameson999

This update explains a lot and their website has more on appeals etc

Where loss of ownership has occurred as a result of tracker failings, lenders have included within the terms of their schemes minimum payments to customers who lost properties of €25,000 for BTL properties and €50,000 for PDHs. 

In addition, dependent on the circumstances of each individual case, further amounts may be paid to reflect additional detriment, including, for example, additional payments to reflect increases in property value, or the write-off of residual debt. 

The average redress and compensation paid to date in respect of loss of ownership of PDHs is c.€133,000 and the average for BTLs c.€148,000. The average amount paid in relation to BTL cases is typically higher because of the greater amounts borrowed.

DS


----------



## Brendan Burgess (17 Sep 2018)

deansmith27 said:


> Where loss of ownership has occurred as a result of tracker failings, lenders have included within the terms of their schemes minimum payments to customers who lost properties of €25,000 for BTL properties and €50,000 for PDHs.



Hi Dean

I am not sure if this is quite correct. 

Where people who lost their tracker also lost their home, they got €50,000. 

I think that they get it anyway whether the loss of the home was caused by the loss of the tracker. 

They are not required to prove that the loss of home is "as a result of tracker failings" 

Brendan


----------



## deansmith27 (17 Sep 2018)

Hi BB,

I'm not sure I follow. This was copied directly from their April report. 

The 50K is a minimum payment but averaged 133k where impacted customers lost the home through voluntary sale for loss or otherwise.

If a bank assess you as not having lost your home as a result of tracker overcharge why would they pay over what is owed ie 50k?

Maybe the OP could clarify this.


----------



## deansmith27 (30 Oct 2018)

Jameson999 said:


> Quick question about appealing to the ombudsman about compensation offered through Secretariat. Has anyone went down this line? We appealed after being granted €7000 compensation but feel that this is inadequate given property has gone up in value by circa €50k since we were forced to sell in 2014. Rental income above the correct mortgage amount for the time since we sold would have been circa €30k being conservative. This 2 bed property was previously our family home but we held on to it between 2009 and 2014 after we moved due to family needs. Anyway we have just began mediation process and have been asked to come up with what we think would be a fair settlement amount? The crux of the whole matter is that we were forced to sell when being charged the incorrect amount, rental income did not cover the mortgage and rental expenses. Mortgage was 912 when we sold and should have bee less than 600, rental income was 950. Any thoughts?



Which bank are you with?


----------

