# What is the Central Bank "enforcement action" on ptsb?



## Brendan Burgess (6 Feb 2015)

This is a very important line from the [broken link removed]t on the withdrawal of their Supreme Court appeal against the Ombudsman's decision on trackers.



> The spokesman also confirmed that this matter is subject to an ongoing enforcement investigation by the Central Bank and that the bank is engaging on this matter.



The CB does not take many enforcement actions.  There have been many disputes between the banks and their customers and the CB has taken no enforcement action. There have been systematic cases referred by the Ombudsman to the CB and the CB usually takes no action at all on them.

But in this case, the CB has told ptsb to review all cases affected by the decision. But it has gone further and taken enforcement action under the [broken link removed].  This suggests that there was some deliberate, conscious, serious misbehaviour by ptsb.

The fact that ptsb even mentions it in their press statement, suggests that they expect an adverse decision from this investigation. Presumably if they felt that the CB would not make any finding, they would not make any reference to it.

What is a prescribed contravention?  It could be a breach of:


a provision in legislation
a code, or a direction, given pursuant to legislation
a condition or requirement imposed on a regulated financial service provider
any obligation imposed on a regulated financial service provider by the Central Bank
And the sanctions can be pretty serious:


a direction to pay the Central Bank a monetary penalty (not exceeding the greater of €10,000,000 or 10% of turnover where the financial service provider is a body corporate or an unincorporated body and not exceeding €1,000,000 where the financial service provider is a natural person and for persons concerned in the management of a financial service provider).
disqualification of a person from being concerned in the management of a regulated financial service provider
revocation or suspension of an authorisation

Brendan


----------



## Raging Bull (6 Feb 2015)

Its good that they are and there definitely should be more of them. Most likely like the case the PTSB are in breach of consumer protection code for failing to act in consumers interests and moreover failing to provide information in a coherent and simplex way.

Section 55 and 56 of the original judgement are compelling.

Under principles of stare decisis the comments in 56 regarding soft species of law now arguably significantly enhance the realm of consumer protection which to date the Oireacthas and Central Bank have failed miserably in advocating


----------



## Brendan Burgess (6 Feb 2015)

This is pure speculation on my part.  

Many of those who broke out of fixed rate mortgages did so because there was no breakage fee. ptsb has said that this was due to a systems error. The FSO said that this was "disingenuous" although the High Court said that the FSO did not have the evidence to say it was disingenuous.

If the CB investigated this and found that there was no systems error and that it was deliberate, then it would be a very serious issue. 

Brendan


----------



## Raging Bull (6 Feb 2015)

The problem with enforcement actions is they are administrative justice not in public so we are all not going to learn everything in detail.

The great thing about this case for all Consumer Protection cases is that it finally puts some meat on the bone. All theses codes until this judgement were to put it simply on shaky legal ground as they were not technically legal enactments of law


----------



## taldar (6 Feb 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> If the CB investigated this and found that there was no systems error and that it was deliberate, then it would be a very serious issue.


 
Interesting point Brendan.  My complaint to the FSO insisted on an investigation into this banking error as we said it was too much of a coincidence of the timing with interest rates the way they were.  We felt it was a calculating & deliberate inducement on the banks part and communicated this to the FSO.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (6 Feb 2015)

Raging Bull said:


> The problem with enforcement actions is they are administrative justice not in public so we are all not going to learn everything in detail.



Hi Bull 

The Central Bank does publish all its settlement agreements.  
http://www.centralbank.ie/publications/Pages/settlement-agreements.aspx

They give the detail of the contravention and the sanction imposed. 

If, for example, there was, as taldar suggests, a "deliberate and calculated inducement" and if they deliberately misled the FSO, I would expect to see details of this in the Settlement Agreement. 

Brendan


----------



## Gerry Canning (6 Feb 2015)

The Enforcement action by Central Bank can as Brendan says be severe.

Step back though.
1.Is this the  PTSB who their boss said are now in fairness mode? , who apologised for previous transgressions ? yet  were still prepared to take little guy to High Court.
2. PTSB were further prepared to take little guy to Supreme Court.
3. It appears that our Central Bank have found something (rottener) in PTSB than any dry point scoring/legalistic Supreme Court challenge.
4.I have little doubt, but that, PTSB have done everything they can to obstruct/fudge/in such a way that Letter of Law is all that matters and that Spirit of the Law is for little people..They would have been confident (thus far)that their (friends) in FSO/Regulator/Central Bank would  not got too involved.
The Consumer Code (no harm to it ) is at best the Spirit of Law . When push comes to shove it is worth very little.

Maybe (and it is a maybe) we may see Central Bank/FSO/ Regulator etc doing their job.
I doubt it.
As the posters have said Central Bank has rarely come on side of consumers.


----------



## kaza (7 Feb 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> This is pure speculation on my part.
> 
> Many of those who broke out of fixed rate mortgages did so because there was no breakage fee. ptsb has said that this was due to a systems error. The FSO said that this was "disingenuous" although the High Court said that the FSO did not have the evidence to say it was disingenuous.
> 
> ...



Brendan, also when I spoke to PTSB back in Jan 2009 about breaking out of my fixed contract early (ending in Aug 2009 @ 4.85%) with no fee or penalty, I was also informed of the following:


Jan 2009 SVR was 4.65%
On 13th Feb 2009 they would be reducing this to 4.15%, by passing on an ECB rate reduction of .5% to *existing* SVR customers.
That only existing SVR customers would get that reduction and new SVR customers (from Feb on wards) would not - so if I waited until August 2009 I would actually be penalized with an SVR that was .5% higher than if I moved in Jan 2009.
I have name, date and time of person I spoke with but PTSB cannot find the call. 
I also have a copy of the fax I send following my phone call, to break out. I state in the fax letter about moving to ensure I get the Feb .5% reduced SVR - PTSB deny they would have said to this me - but why would I have mentioned it in a fax then?.
So in my mind, not only did they entice customer to break fix rate with no fees/penalties - they also told me I would end up with a higher SVR if I didn't break and waited until the end of my fixed period to move to SVR.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (7 Feb 2015)

Hi kaza

That is very interesting. 

If this is the topic which the Central Bank is investigating, then it might be worth sending them a copy of your file.

Brendan


----------



## ella (10 Feb 2015)

Hi Brendan when i sent PTSB a letter in feb 09 to exit my fixed rate no penalty no charge. When i got a copy of this letter back the bank had stamped it Refusal letter sent . What i got 09/03/09 was all about rate change it said nothing about refusal to what i had asked for in my letter. I have asked PTSB for this refusal letter but never got one. and the ombudsman ruled in favor of the bank ???


----------

