# The amount of compensation is a disgrace!



## Hopefully (29 Jul 2015)

Hi Wardy 7 that is a disgrace amount for compensation. Do you  mind me asking when you took your mortgage out in 2008 how long did you originally fix it for 2years or 3 years?? Also thanks for posting that you got your letter ag least we know now the letters have started to be sent obviously in drips and drabs. If you are not already in contact with Padraic Kissane i suggest you do. Best of luck.


----------



## AAM_User (29 Jul 2015)

WOW !!!

That's a disgraceful amount.  The Compensation amounts you received amounts to just 15.48% of your overpayments.

Does it break out how much you overpaid by each month etc ?

Would you mind scanning & posting the letter (removing any identifying remarks of course)?


----------



## rohzar (29 Jul 2015)

Hi,

That amount of compensation is disgraceful! The amount you overpaid- will you get that back or does it go off your mortgage?

Thanks!


----------



## Rory Boyd (29 Jul 2015)

Thanks for the update Wardy...that compensation is a disgrace.


----------



## Andy836 (29 Jul 2015)

Not sure why people think the compensation is a "disgrace". It's over 10% of the overcharge.

What exactly are people expecting?


----------



## Herbie01 (29 Jul 2015)

So the €1800 they have offered as compensation is including the €400 for a financial advisor..... Disgusting is my word for it. They must be hoping everyone is fed up with the fight and will settle for their offer(insult), me thinks the fight is just starting.


----------



## katnia (29 Jul 2015)

Thanks for the info Wardy7.The compo offer is ridiculously low! Hope you fight it. Best of luck if you do. I think we will all be fighting for proper recompense. At the end of the day if Ptsb were truly sorry - not only sorry because they were caught. The compo offer would be fair from the outset and if someone felt they deserved more, they could appeal it then. Effectively we are all going to get low ball offers and then we have to go with our begging bowl to appeal for a fair and proper compensation amount. They are not interested in compensating customers, if they were the offers would reflect that. We need to all be United on this if we are To defeat them and get what is correctly due to us.


----------



## katnia (29 Jul 2015)

Andy836 said:


> Not sure why people think the compensation is a "disgrace". It's over 10% of the overcharge.
> 
> What exactly are people expecting?[/
> 
> .



Does that sound fair to you? PTSB have been taking money from people incorrectly and without foundation for years and years. It's a paltry amount and very insulting. Do you think they go easy on interest and charges for people in arrears? People have lost their homes over this and Ptsb are trying to weasel out of paying proper compensation


----------



## Andy836 (29 Jul 2015)

katnia said:


> Does that sound fair to you? PTSB have been taking money from people incorrectly and without foundation for years and years. It's a paltry amount and very insulting. Do you think they go easy on interest and charges for people in arrears? People have lost their homes over this and Ptsb are trying to weasel out of paying proper compensation



Yes, a very very small number of people may have lost their home because of this, and they're being compensated separately. The original poster on this thread did not lose his home, nor did over 99% of those affected.

Now, to my point, what is "proper compensation"? What is not an "insulting" or "paltry" amount? Put a figure on it and justify it. 

Complaints without an alternative are pointless.


----------



## Wardy7 (29 Jul 2015)

Andy836 said:


> An alternative to applying a flat % across the board, they could band it:
> Those overcharged a little (up to threshold A) get small compensation redress,
> Those who overcharged slightly more (up to Threshold B) might get compensation at a higher rate for the amount between Threshold A & Threshold B
> Then you'd have Threshold C & Threshold D
> ...



Andy836, I see your point but at the same time, it's not anyone's place to decide what's a small or large amount to anyone else. I actually had thought that my mortgage was quite sizeable but maybe not in everyone's eyes?? I have a child heading into 4th year UCD, who very nearly didn't get there at all because of the size of our mortgage. And that's just one example of the intense pressure caused by these cowboys.

So thankfully, we didn't lose our home, but the stresses, anxieties and pressures that we did go through can't be discounted either.


----------



## Sunny (29 Jul 2015)

I have to say that at first glance, I think the compensation offers sound derisory. I know it's the summer but how yesterday's relevantions have not resulted in a political storm is an indictment of our political system and I have to say the media. At least 22 people probably lost property because of PTSB's actions. This was a State owned bank that decided to drag this out all the way to the Supreme Court. Absolutely disgusting and I feel bad for only paying lip service to this issue in the past. I had no idea how deliberate and widespread it was. 

I wish everyone involved all the best and the only advice I would give is to make sure you get independent legal and financial advice. Do not trust the bank and do not feel intimidated by 18 page letters. Congrats to Brendan and others for helping these people when politicians and mainstream media didn't want to know.


----------



## AAM_User (29 Jul 2015)

Andy836 said:


> Yes, a very very small number of people may have lost their home because of this, and they're being compensated separately. The original poster on this thread did not lose his home, nor did over 99% of those affected.
> 
> Now, to my point, what is "proper compensation"? What is not an "insulting" or "paltry" amount? Put a figure on it and justify it.
> 
> Complaints without an alternative are pointless.



OK, to me, compensation for the fact that I exhausted my savings making sure the mortgage was paid, that I had to go without things because the money wasn't there. That my kids had to go without a holiday for three of the years, that I suffered depression and high blood pressure because of it, and that I will now be on relatively expensive medication for the rest of my life to manage both things, which resulted in me being let go from a job I loved because I could no longer perform it as I used to, for the three years I spent unemployed because of that, for the times I had to go to my parents & in-laws for help with buying school books & uniforms because we were struggling to keep our heads above water.  For every direct debit that bounced because there wasn't enough money left at the end of the month.  For being harassed twice a week by phone...

I used to overpay my mortgage in the hopes of paying it off early, I'm going to make it my life's work now to ensure my mortgage looses as much money for PTSB as I can.  Yes, I'll hate being their customer for the next 20+ years, but I'll smile with every payment knowing that I'm costing them.


----------



## Rory Boyd (29 Jul 2015)

I think AAM has hit the nail on the head....Everyone has been affected differently as a result of this fiasco. The one commodity that money can't buy is time...if your kids missed a holiday you can't go back and relive 2009/10 etc etc..you can't undo the sleepless nights of worry you had thinking how will you get out of this..I could go on....while I'm delighted to get my tracker back it was only when I redid the repayment based on my old rate/term and loan left compared to the tracker/term and loan left and realized that I would have paid just under €300,000 more in interest that the anger started to kick in...€300k is some pension fund, college fees paid etc etc...to think a few lousy grand is apt is a million miles from reality. I would be thinking €10k was a good starting point. That isn't greedy in my view...


----------



## Andy836 (30 Jul 2015)

Wardy7 said:


> Andy836, I see your point but at the same time, it's not anyone's place to decide what's a small or large amount to anyone else. I actually had thought that my mortgage was quite sizeable but maybe not in everyone's eyes?? I have a child heading into 4th year UCD, who very nearly didn't get there at all because of the size of our mortgage. And that's just one example of the intense pressure caused by these cowboys.
> 
> So thankfully, we didn't lose our home, but the stresses, anxieties and pressures that we did go through can't be discounted either.



That's the point - much of the "damage caused" is intangible and/or hypothetical and someone must place a monetary value on it. Is it feasible to individually assess 2,000 cases? You'll see from posts on this thread, and from what Brendan has said in the media, that many many people affected (the majority perhaps) didn't even realize they were being overcharged*. Without putting a figure on it & justifying that calculation, I would be very very skeptical that one would succeed in increasing their compensation payment.

The tiered/banded compensation procedure which I stated elsewhere (steps up as the level of overcharge increases) would, in my opinion, be a more reasonable & progressive solution.

As to the size of your mortgage, that's all relative. Everyone's mortgage is big in their eyes!! Mr Rory O'Brien claiming he might have suffered an overcharge of 300k suggests a mortgage well north a million. 

Technically they weren't being overcharged. The Borrowers freely accepted the standard variable rate when they sought to break their fixed rate as it was cheaper than the fixed rate they were on. The high court case turned on whether or not PTSB had an obligation to inform the Borrower that they would lose their tracker option if they broke early. This ascribes a level of fiduciary care on behalf of the Bank toward the consumer with which I disagree - effectively absolves the consumer of responsibility (but everything in Ireland is someone elses fault so I don't see why this should be any different). I think this is a dangerous precedent to set but it is done & dusted now.


----------



## Descart (30 Jul 2015)

Andy836,

Have you got shares in PTSB or what, the High Court will assess all claims individually. By the time these High Court cases come to judgment stage, the Central Bank of Ireland will have issued PTSB a multi million euro fine and deservedly so. Now the court can assess whether there was, in fact, breaches of financial regulations, coupled with a breach of duty to act in good faith by the bank. Seeing that the C.B.I. will have issued a large fine (and it will be a large fine), the court can assess whether there was a systemic policy by the bank to deceive borrowers and trick them out of their tracker mortgages in contravention of their mortgage terms and conditions.

If the court takes this view then it can award aggravated damages as well as  ordinary and special damages. There is also the possibility of taking an action against the bank under the law of tort. The law of tort runs parallel to common law. In tort the Judge has the duty to try and put the affected person (borrower)  back in the same position he would have been if the tort never occurred. In other words back in a same sized house that PTSB sold on through a receiver, at a knocked down price. Due to increases in the market value of houses in recent years the bank would be liable to pay out significant compensation.

Also if a customer affected decides to go to the High Court to seek compensation his legal fees could well be in excess of 50,000 euro, this excludes the cost of PTSB    legal representation. Seeing that liability has been admitted by Mr Masdang ( he is so very sorry ), the case is a win win situation for the borrower's legal team. There will be a queue of no win, no fee solicitors seeking to represent the borrowers affected.


----------



## Descart (30 Jul 2015)

Andy836,

You also believe that the customers affected, were technically not being overcharged, then why on Earth has the bank admitted wrong doing at an official PTSB press conference. You must have some legal expertise that PTSB simply could not afford, you could have saved them millions, if only they had contacted you sooner. Andy836 get down to PTSB in the morning and tell the board of management that they got it all wrong and that it's the borrowers fault. You are wasting your time posting on the AAM site, you could be saving the PTSB millions of euro and getting a fortune in legal fees.


----------



## Andy836 (30 Jul 2015)

Sure thing asphyxia/descart/advice etc

I'm sure you're right. I'm sure there'll be queues out the door of the high court. Im sure you could even squeeze in some unfair terms & conditions argument relating to variation interest rates.

As to you're "tricking conspiracy theory" the high court actually adjudicated on this and found against the 2 ombudsman decisions which claimed same.


----------



## Bronte (30 Jul 2015)

AAM_User said:


> OK, to me, compensation for the fact that I exhausted my savings making sure the mortgage was paid, that I had to go without things because the money wasn't there. That my kids had to go without a holiday for three of the years, that I suffered depression and high blood pressure because of it, and that I will now be on relatively expensive medication for the rest of my life to manage both things, which resulted in me being let go from a job I loved because I could no longer perform it as I used to, for the three years I spent unemployed because of that, for the times I had to go to my parents & in-laws for help with buying school books & uniforms because we were struggling to keep our heads above water.  For every direct debit that bounced because there wasn't enough money left at the end of the month.  For being harassed twice a week by phone...
> 
> I used to overpay my mortgage in the hopes of paying it off early, I'm going to make it my life's work now to ensure my mortgage looses as much money for PTSB as I can.  Yes, I'll hate being their customer for the next 20+ years, but I'll smile with every payment knowing that I'm costing them.



Well said poster AAM user.  2 k is nothing in compensation for all the stress and suffering.  I hope things are brighter for you now.


----------



## Bronte (30 Jul 2015)

Andy836 said:


> Not sure why people think the compensation is a "disgrace". It's over 10% of the overcharge.
> 
> What exactly are people expecting?



Come off it Andy, the amount offered is derisory.  As for the 50k for losing ones home, that's sick, a sick joke.  They should be put back in a comparable house as if they'd been making the payments all along.  Do you not realise the untold stress all of this has had on people.  How many posters have we had on here over the last 10 years doing their absolute dampest to hold onto their homes.  And the treatment we have heard then encounter when they tried to deal on their own with a banker.

People on here crying that they couldn't answer the phone anymore.  Do you not recall the article a few years back about the units in banks with targets on the walls for staff to badger customers and get some money in.  Disgusting stuff.


----------



## peteb (30 Jul 2015)

And what about the rest of us that had issue and werent with PTSB?? Compensation isnt the standard route.  But yet we all had the same trials and tribulations.  In fact PTSB customers probably had an easier life of it as it was highly publicised and therefore required less individual fighting!   If you lost your home, then yes I see the point.  If you moved to another provider, then yet.  But still with PTSB, no.


----------



## Descart (30 Jul 2015)

Andy836 said:


> Sure thing asphyxia/descart/advice etc
> 
> I'm sure you're right. I'm sure there'll be queues out the door of the high court. Im sure you could even squeeze in some unfair terms & conditions argument relating to variation interest rates.
> 
> As to you're "tricking conspiracy theory" the high court actually adjudicated on this and found against the 2 ombudsman decisions which claimed same.




Andy, nice to see you had time to post to this thread, I'm sure you are on your way down to PTSB headquarters to show them the error of their ways. Capitulating to the Central Bank of Ireland, what are these guys at, they are letting down the whole team. The house of cards is about to fall. Maybe your bank next!

As for the Financial Ombudsman, he adjudicated in relation to Danske Bank customers with the exact same complaint, that being overcharging between February 2009 and November 2011, quess what, he came to different conclusions depending on the correspondance from the complainant. The substantive issue however was the same, so much for the Financial Ombudsman.

As for tricking conspiracies, if the C.B.I. refer to this in their  final report on the matter, the High court will have no option but to conclude it did happen. Then Borrowers can seek aggravated damages.


----------



## Asphyxia (30 Jul 2015)

Andy836,

You must be somewhat concerned of how events at PTSB have unfolded, but nice previous post, trying to low ball PTSB customers. Should be proud of yourself.


----------



## matan (30 Jul 2015)

Peteb are you joking me!!!! "An easier life of it", less fighting, cant speak for the people who have been living in a bubble for the last few years and will get a nice letter soon but I for one have been fighting for the past four and a half years through PTSB and the FSO, have had sleepless nights and financial worries so I don't think your comments are very fair!


----------



## Sarenco (30 Jul 2015)

Andy836 said:


> Technically they weren't being overcharged. The Borrowers freely accepted the standard variable rate when they sought to break their fixed rate as it was cheaper than the fixed rate they were on. The high court case turned on whether or not PTSB had an obligation to inform the Borrower that they would lose their tracker option if they broke early. This ascribes a level of fiduciary care on behalf of the Bank toward the consumer with which I disagree - effectively absolves the consumer of responsibility (but everything in Ireland is someone elses fault so I don't see why this should be any different). I think this is a dangerous precedent to set but it is done & dusted now.


 
Hi Andy

I don't necessarily disagree with your points in relation to the quantum or calibration of the proposed compensation but I think you might be overstating the scope of the High Court judgment somewhat.

Justice Hogan held that the FSO was entitled to conclude that a retail bank should properly alert its customers - if only in the most general terms - of the potentially serious adverse consequences of a particular decision, especially where it seems clear that those customers were seeking advice and guidance from the bank's mortgage advice centre and that these are standards that a modern retail bank might reasonably be expected to uphold.  It's certainly an important ruling but it falls a long way short of imposing a fiduciary standard on banks.


----------



## George13 (30 Jul 2015)

I think we need to be careful not to judge our offers in terms of being happy as that is subjective - some people think some amounts of money are huge while others would consider them tiny. We need to sit down and do the sums on what we were entitled to and if we are not able to do that engage somebody who is good with excel spreadsheets!  This is important not just for each person but for the group as a whole and especially those who will continue with the fight as if some people just accept without much thought it will weaken everybody's case. My fear is those who are not communicating here, how do we get publicity to make people think about their offer, not just blindly accept? I remember people getting refunds for mis-sold mortgage protection and they never questioned the quantum of the refund.


----------



## Descart (30 Jul 2015)

Sarenco,

I agree with you in this instance, however having said this, if the personnel working in PTSB mortgage advice centre have Q.F.A. ( qualified financial advisor ) diplomas, then it could be argued that they did indeed dispense advice on behalf of the bank and therefore the bank satisfies the conditions necessary to owe a fiduciary duty of care to the customer. Sometimes, in certain circumstances, inhouse training can backfire on the employer.


----------



## Andy836 (30 Jul 2015)

Sarenco said:


> Hi Andy
> 
> I don't necessarily disagree with your points in relation to the quantum or calibration of the proposed compensation but I think you might be overstating the scope of the High Court judgment somewhat.
> 
> Justice Hogan held that the FSO was entitled to conclude that a retail bank should properly alert its customers - if only in the most general terms - of the potentially serious adverse consequences of a particular decision, especially where it seems clear that those customers were seeking advice and guidance from the bank's mortgage advice centre and that these are standards that a modern retail bank might reasonably be expected to uphold.  It's certainly an important ruling but it falls a long way short of imposing a fiduciary standard on banks.



Hi Sarenco,

I don't agree.
A Borrower is a lending customer of a Bank.
They are not paying the Bank for "advice".
This issue turned on a legal term in the mortgage document - surely the onus was on the Borrower's legal representative to "advise" the Borrower.
On the matter of whether the Borrower was actually seeking "advice from the bank" I don't think this was ever seriously argued (I could have missed it in the judgement though). As was noted in the judgement, the error on PTSB's system (allowing a free break) was actually getting a lot of attention online on consumer advocacy forums. Were these people getting their advice online and simply going to the Bank to execute orders? How many of the customers actually asked the Bank for "advice"? PTSB's lack of phone records is their undoing here.
As to it falling short of imposing a fiduciary standard on the Bank - it don't agree. The Court found that the Bank was obligated to proactively provide additional information to the Borrower relating to potential downside risk from taking a short term decision. As mentioned the Bank is not being paid for this advice. Where does this obligation stop? What other information should the lender be obligated to provide? Should the Lender have advised that technically the SVR could be at some stage below the tracker rate? How far into the future does the advice have to look? I think this case has the potential to open up a can of worms.
Quote below from the Ombudsman Report - Healy Appeal


"The impact of availing of the variable rate at that point with the effect the complainants were permanently losing the tracker rate, *depriving them of a lower rate at a later stage,* should have been discussed with the complainants"
Does the same thing apply to a customer switching into a fixed rate? i.e. are the Bank obligated to tell them that short term interest rates may fall? What if the ECB rate had sky rocketed and went above the fixed rate? Highly unlikely & a largely irrelevant point but where does it end - how many possibilities do they have to hammer out?

So our differences in summary
- I don't think it is clear the Borrower's were seeking advice or guidance,
- I don't think it is the Bank's place to advise a Borrower on a legal term in a credit agreement to which they are party


As to Asphyxia's reference to "QFA". That is an industry mandated qualification required by the regulator of a Bank employee who may discuss a financial product with a consumer. It does not confer any advisory relationship.


----------



## Sarenco (30 Jul 2015)

Andy

I think you may have misunderstood me.

Acting as a fiduciary has a specific legal meaning and I'm simply pointing out that Justice Hogan did not find that the bank was acting in a fiduciary capacity (he deals with this specific point in some detail in his judgment).  I'm was simply reporting his actual finding without seeking to comment on same.

I agree that this ruling may well have important long-term consequences but it is not correct to say that Justice Hogan found that the bank was acting in a fiduciary capacity.  Such a finding really would have profound consequences!

It probably doesn't need to be said, but I can see absolutely no basis for Asphyxia's assertion that a bank could be argued to be holding out employees with a QFA designation to be legal advisors.


----------



## Descart (30 Jul 2015)

Fiduciary may occur, it has been argued, in these contexts, banks being more vulnerable where private customers are concerned:-


If the customer expects advice to be given, even where contrary to the bank’s interests;

If advice is expected and the bank’s interest is represented to be formal or nominal;

If the bank, while it is expected to act in it’s own interest, has created the expectation that it will otherwise advise in the customer’s interest (e.g. on the wisdom of the customer’s borrowing);

If the bank advises or acts for two customers in their transactions with each other.
Andy836

What does A stand for in QFA ? answer adviser.


----------



## peteb (30 Jul 2015)

matan said:


> Peteb are you joking me!!!! "An easier life of it", less fighting, cant speak for the people who have been living in a bubble for the last few years and will get a nice letter soon but I for one have been fighting for the past four and a half years through PTSB and the FSO, have had sleepless nights and financial worries so I don't think your comments are very fair!



Matan, search me on this site.  I had a tracker with Ulster Bank that I had to fight tooth and nail to get back.   Tell me how your fight was different to mine?


----------



## diver (30 Jul 2015)

peteb said:


> And what about the rest of us that had issue and werent with PTSB?? Compensation isnt the standard route.  But yet we all had the same trials and tribulations.  In fact PTSB customers probably had an easier life of it as it was highly publicised and therefore required less individual fighting!   If you lost your home, then yes I see the point.  If you moved to another provider, then yet.  But still with PTSB, no.





matan said:


> Peteb are you joking me!!!! "An easier life of it", less fighting, cant speak for the people who have been living in a bubble for the last few years and will get a nice letter soon but I for one have been fighting for the past four and a half years through PTSB and the FSO, have had sleepless nights and financial worries so I don't think your comments are very fair!





peteb said:


> Matan, search me on this site.  I had a tracker with Ulster Bank that I had to fight tooth and nail to get back.   Tell me how your fight was different to mine?



Matan,

Peteb did indeed have to fight Ulster Bank to have his tracker restored...only for peteb and others on this site, I wouldn't have thought to question my own mortgage. I did, thanks to AAM users and won my case with Ulster Bank. I had overpaid by €31,000. It also cost me a considerable sum to get this overpayment back from Ulster Bank. Did Ulster Bank offer me any compensation for stress, financial worries for the 6 years that I was overpaying? NO!! Did they offer to pay any fees I incurred in taking this case against them? NO!!! As peteb rightly said (and Brendan on another thread), compensation IS NOT the norm. Most banks have been found to be overcharging customers in some shape or form over the last few years, these 2,000 PTSB customers are just the latest in a very long list gone before them.


----------



## Andy836 (30 Jul 2015)

Sarenco said:


> Andy
> 
> I think you may have misunderstood me.
> 
> ...



You're right. I was mixing fiduciary care with duty of care.


----------



## matan (30 Jul 2015)

Point taken diver i havnt read peteb's previous posts but i will do so. My point was not about compensation, i am well aware that is not the norm with banks but i have been fighting this long and hard and thats the point im making, it has not been easy!


----------



## Sarenco (30 Jul 2015)

Andy836 said:


> You're right. I was mixing fiduciary care with duty of care.



Well, yes, but the High Court didn't actually find that PTSB owed its customers a duty of care either!  

Justice Hogan simply held that the FSO was entitled to arrive at certain conclusions in a particular context.

I appreciate that this sounds terribly pedantic but bear in mind that the FSO is not a court of law.  When dealing with a particular compliant, the FSO is required to act in an informal manner and according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the complaint without regard to technicality or legal form.

I'm not saying that a bank would never be found to owe a customer a duty of care in any circumstances - I'm simply saying there was no finding in this regard in this particular case.


----------



## Descart (31 Jul 2015)

Diver,

Of course a financial institution is not going to voluntarily offer you compensation, that does not mean you are not entitled to same. The costs incurred by you to get the overcharging returned are refundable , whether through arbitration with the bank or by redress through the courts. Ulster bank legal dept know this, so write them a letter asking for them to outline their proposals on how they will refund the expenses outlayed. ( statute of limitation applies in this case (6 years)). Whether compensation is the norm or not, is not the question that should be asked, whether you are legally entitled to compensation or not, is the question. In your particular case, you would definitely be entitled to recover all costs incurred, associated with getting Ulster bank to correct their overcharging to your account. The question of whether you are entitled to compensation is best decided upon by your solicitor.


----------



## Descart (31 Jul 2015)

Sarenco,

It has been well decided in law that all banks owe a duty of care to their customers, you know this. (Unless the customer signs a disclaimer form for a particular banking product.)


----------



## Sarenco (31 Jul 2015)

Descart said:


> Sarenco,
> 
> It has been well decided in law that all banks owe a duty of care to their customers, you know this. (Unless the customer signs a disclaimer form for a particular banking product.)


 
Please do not misrepresent my posts.  I was very clear that I was simply reporting on Justice Hogan's specific findings in this particular case and nothing more.

I have no desire to enter into another futile debate with you on your wild legal theories.


----------



## Descart (1 Aug 2015)

Sarenco,

I think you are confusing wild legal theories with the settled legal position in this Country, but in fairness you were probably only trying to give your opinion on Justice Hogan's findings. Be less tetchy


----------



## Sarenco (1 Aug 2015)

No, I was not "trying" to give my opinion on Justice Hogan's findings.  I simply reported on the actual finding, nothing more.

Again, I would ask you to please stop misrepresenting my posts.


----------



## Descart (1 Aug 2015)

Likewise, and please do repeat on this forum that any of my posts are wild legal theories, otherwise I will have to report you. My post are for consumers, confronted by disingenuous banks who are, in the main part (as PadKiss referred to ), altering the terms and conditions of borrower's loan agreements and then seeking to enforce same. Shame on them. The posts are not for you or your agenda, but for the consumers affected by the bank's actions. See below:

*FBI Reports 80% of Mortgage Fraud Committed by Lenders*
* When most people think of mortgage fraud*, they think of a clever borrower conning an unwitting banker into extending him a loan he cannot afford. But this isn’t really how fraud usually works in the mortgage business. According to the FBI, 80% of mortgage fraud is committed by lenders.

The same type of behaviour occurred in Irish banks during the Celtic tiger era.


----------



## Sarenco (1 Aug 2015)

Please feel free to report any of my posts that you feel breach any forum posting guidelines. 

Like many here, I have huge regard for Pádraig Kissane's work on behalf of borrowers.  However, he has yet to post any evidence, as far as I know, to justify his claim that a bank has systematically been changing the terms and conditions of any existing loan documentation.  I don't doubt that he has such evidence but it has not, as far as I am aware, been published to date.

I do not doubt your motivation but, frankly, I do not consider the various legal arguments and theories that you have posted here to be convincing or even credible and I have no desire to enter into any futile debates with you in this regard.


----------



## Descart (1 Aug 2015)

Sarenco,

Why on earth would Mr Kissane post this evidence on an open forum for the bank's to view and try to come up with legal defences ?  You are even more naive than I thought. Ever hear of the phrase " Keep your powder dry." From taking to other posters it appears, not many take note of your waffle and attempt to keep the scales firmly balanced in favour of the banks. Yourself, Brendan44, Delboy and Andy836 should get together for coffee to come up with another strategy.


----------



## Sarenco (1 Aug 2015)

Yet more personal abuse...


----------



## Descart (1 Aug 2015)

Sarenco,

Not personal abuse, just stating fact. Let's not get off thread though. What do you regard as adequate compensation for PTSB to offer those borrowers whom had their homes or buy to let's repossessed by the bank ?


----------



## Kelmcc (1 Aug 2015)

U


----------



## Descart (1 Aug 2015)

Kelmcc,

What happened to your post !


----------



## Kelmcc (1 Aug 2015)

Don't know!!!  I was saying to @Sarenco - have you been ripped off by ptsb because by your tone/posts I'm confused... are we not all after the same thing, a proper offer from Ptsb for THEIR wrongdoing and theft from their trusting customers.


----------



## Descart (1 Aug 2015)

Kelmcc,

No he hasn't. Probably doesn't even have a mortgage. He likes commenting and giving his "opinion" on most threads. Usually weighted in favour of the banks and or the establishment's position. Far from a consumer advocate in my view.

Again I'll ask him a specific question. Sarenco, what do you believe is a equitable offer from PTSB for compensation for a borrower whom has lost his home or his buy to let property, due to PTSB actions?


----------



## Sarenco (2 Aug 2015)

Kelmcc said:


> Don't know!!!  I was saying to @Sarenco - have you been ripped off by ptsb because by your tone/posts I'm confused... are we not all after the same thing, a proper offer from Ptsb for THEIR wrongdoing and theft from their trusting customers.



Theft?!  If you have any evidence of theft you should report it to the Gardai.

For what it's worth, I am of the opinion that the current management of PTSB were right to abandon their appeal of the High Court decision to the Supreme Court in what were effectively four test cases on this issue.  In my opinion, there was a low probability that the Supreme Court would have upheld the construction that PTSB were seeking to place on the relevant clause in the respective loan contracts and, accordingly, would have overturned the decision of the FSO in the four test cases that formed part of the High Court appeal.

Are PTSB right, in principle, to offer compensation to borrowers over and above the amount of interest that would have been charged if a borrower had been permitted to chose a tracker rate and had chosen this rate when breaking their fixed rate?  While the FSO adjudications did not envisage any such additional compensation, I am of the opinion that it is appropriate to offer affected borrowers an ex gratia payment in the circumstances.

To be honest, I don't really know the detail of the compensation being offered by PTSB in each individual case so am not in a position to comment.  I gather from other posters that the compensation amount appears to be averaging at around 10% of the interest payments that would have been saved if a tracker rate had been available and accepted at the time that each individual borrower broke out of the fixed rate.  That average amount doesn't sound unreasonable to me but I don't know whether this figure varies according to individual circumstances.


----------



## Descart (2 Aug 2015)

Sarenco,

again, can you put a rough figure for the compensation for a borrower losing their home due to PTSB's  interpretation of the construction of the tracker clause in the respective mortgage contract. Don't forget to include the monies that were put into the house by the borrower, prior to the receiver selling it at a depressed price. The costs associated with moving. The increase in market value of the house since the receiver sale. ( Restitutional loss ) The emotional, mental and physical stress associated with losing one's home for both the borrower(s) and their children (if applicable).

Needless to say, if the said borrower ( injured party ) took an action down the High Court to receive adequate compensation, the legal fees of both parties will probably be in access of 100,000 euro ( which PTSB would bear ), that is before the Judge even awards a compensation figure. So Sarenco, what ball park figure would you put on adequate compensation in this situation !


----------



## Sarenco (2 Aug 2015)

I wouldn't presume that it would ever be possible to assess a general figure that takes no account of individual circumstances.

However, I note that the Sunday Business Post is reporting today that PTSB is offering compensation of "at least €50,000 to those who lost their homes directly as a result of the bank's failure to inform them of the cost of moving interest rates".

Apparently PTSB has already agreed "to write off debt or offer customers mortgages as part of its redress scheme, and there is no ceiling in the sums they will be offered".  The report states that PTSB still has a small number of the properties and these will be handed back to the affected customers if they want them.

In addition, PTSB has apparently agreed to set up an independent appeals panel that will be completely independent of the bank and the PTSB CEO has said that "the appeals body can set awards without limit, and the bank is bound by it".

I am obviously simply relying on a press report but, on the face of it, the PTSB response does not appear to me to be half-hearted or particularly ungenerous.


----------



## Descart (2 Aug 2015)

Sarenco,

You have still not answered the question. You are like a poitican trying to defend the undefendable. Deflect and avoid ! The question was directed at you, your opinion as to what a fair amount would be in terms of overall compensation for the loss of the borrower's home due to PTSB errors. I do not want to know what a journalist in the Sunday Business Post has said. You post your opinion about lot of matters posted in threads on this forum, so step up to the plate and, for the 3rd time, put a rough ballpark figure on the amount of compensation PTSB should offer borrowers whom have lost their homes.


----------



## Sarenco (2 Aug 2015)

Could you possibly engage in a discussion without constantly resorting to personal invective?

As pointed out above, I simply don't think it is possible or appropriate to put a "rough ballpark figure" on the amount of compensation that should be offered without taking account of the particular circumstances of each individual case.

If you do think it is possible and appropriate, then perhaps you could give us your own "rough ballpark figure" with your justification as to how you have arrived at that figure?


----------



## Descart (2 Aug 2015)

Sarenco,

Said like a true politican.( avoid and deflect )

I think other posters on this forum now get which side of the fence your " opinions lie " you are far from a consumer advocate. I will step up to the plate. The minimum compensation that should be awarded by PTSB to a borrower whom has lost their "home" , due to this debacle, has to be at least 170,000 euro. Anything  less is derisory. In a tortious ( law of torts ) action, a Judge is obliged to seek to put the person back into the original position he/she would have been in, if the tort had never occurred, and to adequately compensate the injured party in this regard. This figure could still be conservative, having regard to the significant increase in property prices in the recent times.

PTSB legal risk assessors, will also have borne in mind, the high legal costs associated in defending any High Court action, when liability has already been admitted by the Bank ! ( ie, the bank will have to pay the borrowers legal costs in any court action as well as their own. )


----------



## Sarenco (2 Aug 2015)

I am not and have never held myself out to be a consumer advocate.  Or a representative of any financial institution for that matter.

I am simply an ordinary taxpayer, that happens to have a mortgage, and will therefore indirectly bear a proportionate amount of any compensation payment.  I don't have a problem with that.

The PTSB redress scheme, as I understand, is intended to provide a level of compensation over and above the lower interest payments that would have been made if the borrower had been offered and opted for a tracker rate when they broke out of their fixed rate mortgage.  In other words, the scheme is actually designed to put a borrower in a better position than they would have been in if PTSB simply had not appealed the relevant FSO decisions.

Is your figure of €170,000 in any way related to the outstanding value of the mortgage, including arrears? Does it include, or is it in addition to, the amount of any mortgage debt written down?  Would specific individual facts, such as marital breakdown or health issues, have a bearing?

Why €170,000 in the first place?  Why not €1,000,000 or €50,000?


----------



## Descart (2 Aug 2015)

Then why post on AAM.

In relation to your other questions, I will try to explain my reasoning for arriving at this figure, which I might add is only a ball park figure ( and only relates to borrowers who have lost their homes ) and, as you correctly stated in your previous posts, every claim should be individually assessed.

Firstly, if the borrower does not accept PTSB's amount offered, then the likely legal cost for PTSB will be in the 100,000 euro range, as PTSB will have to pay for all legal costs in any court action.

Secondly, will be the possibility of the Judge awarding aggravated damages ( C.B.I. report will have a bearing on same ) which will significantly increase any likely court awards.

That, aside, the personal trauma and stigma associated with losing ones home, coupled with the likely affect on personality, psyche, mood, personal relationships etc ( safety, Maslows theory of hierarchy  refers )

Finally, PTSB need to do the right thing ( ie Government owned ). The costs politically, of dragging this matter out, with an election looming, needs to be quantified and assessed by Government. A quick resolution, with generous compensation amounts to those affected, are the order of the day.

If the other matters to which you refer are pertinent to a particular case, then these matters will add to the amount of the award.


----------



## Bronte (3 Aug 2015)

peteb said:


> Matan, search me on this site.  I had a tracker with Ulster Bank that I had to fight tooth and nail to get back.   Tell me how your fight was different to mine?


 
I wonder Peteb if there are other customers like you who ought to get their trackers back but who don't even realise it. On another thread Burgess pointed out in his Sunday Times article that only a few customers complained about the PTSB. 

In relation to Ulster, my brother has a tracker but they applied an incorrect rate from the beginning but he spoted it and got the correct rate backdated.


----------



## Bronte (3 Aug 2015)

Descart said:


> Sarenco,
> 
> 
> You are even more naive than I thought.
> ...


 
This is a riduculous comment about posters that are very well known on here and give great advice and you quite clearly need to stop posting like this when there is no need for it.  This forum is for debate and all views are welcome as we all seek to understand what happened and why it happened and what should happen now.


----------



## Bronte (3 Aug 2015)

Sarenco said:


> In addition, PTSB has apparently agreed to set up an independent appeals panel that will be completely independent of the bank and the PTSB CEO has said that "the appeals body can set awards without limit, and the bank is bound by it".
> 
> .


 
I would worry about this being independent if PTSB pay them and appoint them.  Time will tell.  Let's see if independent consumer advocates are appointed for starters.


----------



## Descart (3 Aug 2015)

Bronte,

I stand over all posts I make. I like open debate, even from posters who obviously post from a bankers perspective, this all adds to the mix of the forum. I will not, however, take a scolding from you, when you have neglected to read all the posts in relation to  the matter referred to by you and do not know the context in which I posted the above. Look before you leap!

In relation to tracker mortgages shenanigans of the banks, I believe the C.B.I. are broadening their probe to look at every financial institution that offered trackers at this time. I believe Ulster bank will be included as well as the other banksters.

The thread reads " amount of compensation is a disgrace. " any views Bronte ?


----------



## Bronte (3 Aug 2015)

Yes I agree the compensation needs to be higher.  BUT, it is Irish taxpayers and the other bank customers who will pay for it.  50K would not compensate for losing a house.  3K would not compensate for the financial stress on a family nor would it make up for all those years.

Insulting posters or assuming things about them when they are well known on here for giving good advice, just because you perceive a bias that does not exist, is no help on here.  We accept all views.

You have no idea what I have or haven't read.  And by the way, my previous posts on bankers were fairly testy.  Just dont' have the energy as I now know nothing will ever change and bankers will always win.  Socialising losses and capitalising gains.


----------



## Descart (3 Aug 2015)

Bronte 

Do not be disheartened, there are changes coming ! The CBI have been told to get their ass in gear in relation to it's consumer protection functions.


----------



## Bronte (3 Aug 2015)

I have no faith ever in the CBI.  Nor the ombudsman's office after my own cases, which were nothing compared to the PTSB customers, so I can not complain, in comparison.


----------



## Fella (3 Aug 2015)

Descart said:


> Sarenco,
> 
> Why on earth would Mr Kissane post this evidence on an open forum for the bank's to view and try to come up with legal defences ?  You are even more naive than I thought. Ever hear of the phrase " Keep your powder dry." From taking to other posters it appears, not many take note of your waffle and attempt to keep the scales firmly balanced in favour of the banks. Yourself, Brendan44, Delboy and Andy836 should get together for coffee to come up with another strategy.



Your behaving like a child , this guy Sarenco has given great advice . 
It's a forum for everyone to have an opinion and help each other save money or pay debts or whatever financial problems they have, if someone doesn't agree with you that doesn't mean they are working for the banks .
Your coming across terribly , I stick up for banks regularly myself I don't believe in the Fair mortgage SVR campaign I think banks should be allowed charge what they want to maintain profitability , I am cash rich i want more interest on my cash in bank I want more repossessions I want strategic defaulters dealt with strongly 
I don't work for a bank they are just my views , they may be wrong to some and others may agree but they are mine - accusing someone who doesn't agree with you of working for the banks is childish and pointless , he says he doesn't you say you do it goes on forever and clogs up forums so zip it and let the good guys keep posting and help educate others in the best way possible without paying a financial advisor .


----------



## Dermot (3 Aug 2015)

I broadly agree with Fella and I would consider Sarenco one of the top posters.  I do think that PTSB have dealt with their customers in an atrocious way and there are probably a lot of similar issues in other banks as well.  I cannot understand how lethargic the vast majority of mortgage holders are in this country.  They vast majority just sat on their hands and waited for a small number of people to fight their fight for them.  There are more than likely a great number of people up in arms about the amount of compensation they are getting but could not have been bothered to read their mortgage contract or complain.


----------



## Bronte (4 Aug 2015)

I see nothing wrong whatsoever in Fella and Dermot's posts.  I too would like higher interest rates, but in the interest of getting the country back on it's feet and benefiting all of society I would firstly like more of the mess to be sorted out as people are suffering.  And like Dermot it amazes me the energy spent on things like protesting Irish water instead of going and taking on the PTSB or one's own bank.

What is also striking about all of this is the amount of customers who don't have one clue about their contracts, they didn't even know what they were signing in a lot of cases.  This is serious stuff, the mostly costly investment in normal people's lives and the one they need to take the most care about, but in the vast majority of cases it seems people just signed what was put in front of them.

Also agree about the strategic defaulters, that the court system of repossessions is unbelievably slow or actually not functioning (thanks to Coffee for his analysis).  As for the totally idiotic idea of the Insolvency service with hardly any cases, what do all the workers do in there !


----------



## Descart (4 Aug 2015)

Fella,

All I can say is, read this article:


*FBI Reports 80% of Mortgage Fraud Committed by Lenders*
* When most people think of mortgage fraud*, they think of a clever borrower conning an unwitting banker into extending him a loan he cannot afford. But this isn’t really how fraud usually works in the mortgage business. According to the FBI, 80% of mortgage fraud is committed by lenders.


Now, here is actually some great advice that might save you a packet.

If you got a mortgage in Ireland prior to 2007, a high proportion of these contracts could be voidable ( written off due to unconscionable behaviour of the banks- fraud ) Send a routine access request to the banks looking in particular for your mortgage application, if the bank amended it, in any way, without your permission or knowledge, so as to circumvent their credit risk department, they may have committed mortgage fraud. A proportion of loan managers did doctor these applications so that they would receive their monthly bonus. Structural changes to banks after 2007, reduced the likelihood of this type of fraud occurring. If you prove a fraud was committed, the contract is void.

" No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything."

Justice Denning

Debtors in this Country need to arm themselves with facts, not grovel before the banksters.


----------



## Sarenco (4 Aug 2015)

@ Bronte, Fella and Dermot,

Thank you for your comments.

@ Descart

Looking behind that headline, the FBI actually said that "based on existing investigations and mortgage fraud reporting, 80 percent of all reported fraud losses involve collaboration or collusion by industry insiders."  They certainly didn't suggest that 80% of US mortgage loans in any particular period were fraudulent or that borrowers were innocent bystanders in the majority of mortgage fraud cases.  Obtaining a loan by deception is a crime in this jurisdiction that carries a penalty of up to 5 years imprisonment.  As such, I would suggest that borrowers need to be extremely cautious before alleging that a lender collaborated or colluded in mortgage fraud.


----------



## Sarenco (4 Aug 2015)

Getting back on topic, it strikes me that the amount of any debt-write off should also be a relevant consideration in assessing the appropriateness of any compensation award.

All other things being equal, would you award the same level of compensation to a borrower who had €500k in arrears written off as a borrower that only had €50k written off?  Revenue has already clarified that it will not treat a bona fide debt write off as a taxable event so writing off mortgage arrears may actually prove to be more tax efficient than a cash payment as a way of compensating impacted borrowers.

Unscrambling this particular egg is not going to be easy.


----------



## Descart (4 Aug 2015)

Sarenco,

In relation to the Mortgage fraud post I never said that. The headline I posted was just to get posters to look at what is going on in the industry. Here is a synopsis of a 2010 FBI key report about the level of mortage fraud within the Country.

*Key Findings *


Mortgage fraud continued at elevated levels in 2010, consistent with levels seen in 2009. Mortgage fraud schemes are particularly resilient, and they readily adapt to economic changes and modifications in lending practices.
Mortgage fraud perpetrators include licensed/registered and non-licensed/registered mortgage brokers, lenders, appraisers, underwriters, accountants, real estate agents, settlement attorneys, land developers, investors, builders, bank account representatives, and trust account representatives.
Total dollar losses directly attributed to mortgage fraud are unknown.
A continued decrease in loan originations from 2009 to 2010 (and expected through 2012), high levels of unemployment and housing inventory, lower housing prices, and an increase in defaults and foreclosures dominated the housing market in 2010. RealtyTrac reported 2.9 million foreclosures in 2010, representing a 2 percent increase in foreclosures since 2009 and a 23 percent increase since 2008.
Analysis of available law enforcement and industry data indicates the top states for known or suspected mortgage fraud activity during 2010 were California, Florida, New York, Illinois, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Texas, Georgia, Maryland, and New Jersey; reflecting the same demographic market affected by mortgage fraud in 2009.
Prevalent mortgage fraud schemes reported by law enforcement and industry in FY 2010 included loan origination, foreclosure rescue, real estate investment, equity skimming, short sale, illegal property flipping, title/escrow/settlement, commercial loan, and builder bailout schemes. Home equity line of credit (HELOC), reverse mortgage fraud, and fraud involving loan modifications are still a concern for law enforcement and industry.
With elevated levels of mortgage fraud, the FBI has continued to dedicate significant resources to the threat. In June 2010, the Department of Justice (DOJ), to include the FBI, announced a mortgage fraud takedown referred to as Operation Stolen Dreams. The takedown targeted mortgage fraudsters throughout the country and was the largest collective enforcement effort ever brought to bear in combating mortgage fraud.
The current and continuing depressed housing market will likely remain an attractive environment for mortgage fraud perpetrators who will continue to seek new methods to circumvent loopholes and gaps in the mortgage lending market. These methods will likely remain effective in the near term, as the housing market is anticipated to remain stagnant through 2011.
Just stating that the banks are not as pure as driven snow. Sarenco, can you name me a lender who has never had an employee convicted of fraud ? Seeing that the employee is acting in a position of authority, the bank takes responsabilty as body corporate.

In relation to the criminal law in this Country, I will have to correct you, the usual offence that the DPP use to charge a person in relation to mortgage fraud is section 26 Criminal Justice ( Theft and Fraud Offences ) Act 2001, this in fact carries a maximum penalty of 10 years. imprisonment.


----------



## Descart (4 Aug 2015)

Getting back to the topic, you have an interesting argument, however I feel the compensation ( ordinary damages part ) should be the same for a borrower who has lost a million euro home and a borrower who has lost a 200,000 euro home.


----------



## Sarenco (4 Aug 2015)

No, the offence of obtaining a loan by deception is contained in Section 7 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001 and it does indeed carry a maximum penalty of a fine and/or 5 years imprisonment.

Section 26 of that Act relates to the quite separate offence of using a false instrument, which may or may not be committed at the same time as an offence under Section 7 is committed.

I never stated or implied that banks, or their employees, are all as "pure as driven snow".  I really wish you would stop misrepresenting my posts.

Your post suggested that borrowers could seek to invalidate their mortgage contracts by proving fraud, which you you certainly implied was likely to be widespread.  I am simply pointing out that obtaining a loan by deception is itself an offence and I would caution borrowers to tread carefully before alleging any fraud on the part of a lender in which they may be found to have collaborated or colluded.


----------



## Sarenco (4 Aug 2015)

Descart said:


> Getting back to the topic, you have an interesting argument, however I feel the compensation ( ordinary damages part ) should be the same for a borrower who has lost a million euro home and a borrower who has lost a 200,000 euro home.



As a taxpayer, I can't agree with this logic.  If a borrower has €1 million in mortgage arrears written off, I cannot see why they should get an additional compensation payment in the same amount as a borrower that has €200k in mortgage arrears written off, everything else being equal.


----------



## Descart (4 Aug 2015)

Sarenco,

Simple really, because PTSB erred and as a result on this incorrect interpretation of the contract, the borrowers lost their houses unlawfully. ( the error resulted in the same consequential loss, that being th loss of the borrower's home. ) In the law of tort, if possible, a Judge is obliged to put the injured party back into the same position they would have been in, if the tort had never occurred. 

Sarenco, the corollary of your argument is also valid, that being, a million euro house would have gained more in monetary value from capital appreciation in the last 5 years than a 200,000 euro house.


----------



## Descart (4 Aug 2015)

In relation to the criminal law, the utilisation of a false instrument is invariable involved, when mortgage fraud occurs. I never suggested that 80% of mortgages issued in the USA, involved mortgage fraud. Please stop misrepresenting my posts!


----------



## Sarenco (4 Aug 2015)

Descart said:


> I never suggested that 80% of mortgages issued in the USA, involved mortgage fraud.


 
I didn't say you did.  You did, however, say that a "high proportion of mortgage contracts" written in Ireland prior to 2007 could be voided immediately after reproducing that (rather misleading) headline in relation to mortgage fraud in the US.  Any reasonably reading of your post would leave the impression that you were implying some link between the two statements.


----------



## Descart (4 Aug 2015)

There is a difference between could and would. You should consult a dictionary. Oh yes, remember the question I posed to you earlier, I am wondering have you come up with an Irish financial institution who has not had an employee prosecuted for mortgage fraud ?


----------



## Sarenco (4 Aug 2015)

Descart said:


> Sarenco,
> 
> Simple really, because PTSB erred and as a result on this incorrect interpretation of the contract, the borrowers lost their houses unlawfully. ( the error resulted in the same consequential loss, that being th loss of the borrower's home. ) In the law of tort, if possible, a Judge is obliged to put the injured party back into the same position they would have been in, if the tort had never occurred.
> 
> Sarenco, the corollary of your argument is also valid, that being, a million euro house would have gained more in monetary value from capital appreciation in the last 5 years than a 200,000 euro house.


 
Your mixing of concepts from the laws of contract and tort in your post is completely confusing. 

The only judgment that we have to date is a High Court judgment to the effect that the FSO did not err in law in finding as he did in four test cases.  PTSB has abandoned its Supreme Court appeal in this regard and has established an extra-judicial redress scheme to compensate impacted borrowers.

If a case for breach of contract was taken by a borrower against PTSB then I would be confident that the borrower would succeed and would have the "excess" interest payments refunded by way of damages and the appropriate tracker rate reflected going forward.  That is happening anyway, as I understand it, under the redress scheme.

I don't know what tort you think occurred.  It certainly isn't negligent advice as the complaint was that PTSB offered no advice at all to borrowers!


----------



## Sarenco (4 Aug 2015)

Descart said:


> There is a difference between could and would. You should consult a dictionary.


 
More abusive posts!  Sheesh...

I said "could" as it happens...


----------



## Sarenco (4 Aug 2015)

Descart said:


> In relation to the criminal law, the utilisation of a false instrument is invariable involved, when mortgage fraud occurs.


 
No, not invariably.  Obtaining a loan by deception often involves the use of a false instrument but this is certainly not invariably the case.


----------



## Descart (4 Aug 2015)

Sarenco,

Exactly " could " means a possibility.

In relation to your post on the law and contract and law of tort, you are creating more smoke and mirrors for readers, again, as you know ,both run parallel to each other. Tort can be found in statutory and common law. There is a tort for duty of care.

In tort law, a *duty of care* is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. Did PTSB show such a duty of care when taking possession of customers homes, I think not.!


----------



## AAM_User (4 Aug 2015)

Sarenco & Descart,  

Could the pair of you start your own personal thread to argue this out? I'm surprised it's gone this far.  You've taken the thread way off topic.


----------



## Descart (4 Aug 2015)

Yes, totally agree with you, but the poster Sarenco would attempt to argue black is white. Hope my posts in relation to the thread content are somewhat helpful.


----------



## Sarenco (4 Aug 2015)

This thread is about the appropriateness or otherwise of the compensation being offered under the PTSB redress scheme. 

Posts about the parallel universe of mortgage fraud and possible damages awards for breaches of contract or tortious acts (imagined or otherwise) are not relevant.


----------



## Descart (4 Aug 2015)

Of course the posts are relevant in the fact that borrowers affected by this PTSB debacle can decide to accept the lowball offer from PTSB or seek compensation through the courts. That is what the thread is all about ( damages awarded through the courts is a possible avenue open to borrowers who find PTSB offer of compensation to be inadequate ). Very relevant in my opinion.


----------



## Sarenco (4 Aug 2015)

Well, other posters clearly disagree.


----------



## Descart (4 Aug 2015)

Sarenco,

It's is an open forum and people are allowed different views; do you agree or disagree ?


----------



## Penny1 (7 Aug 2015)

Hi all, hopefully this is the correct place to ask the following..
Some years ago I managed to get my tracker back from ptsb.( long story,but massive amount of hassle ,time,stress ,involved ). They did pay me the difference in what I should have been paying etc.
However, at the time ,I asked about compensation for stress,inconvience etc,and it was an definite  NO.
Now I see ( I stand to be corrected) that they are now offering this type of compensation .
I did write to the ombudsman,suggesting that although they refused mine, that the ombudsmen should look into the fact that people should be compensated.
I'm wondering if I now have any chance of getting some compensation,due to the fact that they now recognise that people deserve and are entitled to it?
I still reel at the cost of the rates at that time with ptsb  constantly going up,and paying 1 k above what my tracker would be,it was such a horrible time and only that I really pushed the tracker issue( they had refused putting me back on it more than once)I'd have have never got it back.
Thanks for any input/ advice


----------



## random2011 (7 Aug 2015)

Penny1 said:


> Hi all, hopefully this is the correct place to ask the following..
> Some years ago I managed to get my tracker back from ptsb.( long story,but massive amount of hassle ,time,stress ,involved ). They did pay me the difference in what I should have been paying etc.
> However, at the time ,I asked about compensation for stress,inconvience etc,and it was an definite  NO.
> Now I see ( I stand to be corrected) that they are now offering this type of compensation .
> ...


Penny, can you elaborate on your case to getting the tracker back. Did you fix and break or did you fixed and choose SVR instead of tracker etc.


----------



## Penny1 (7 Aug 2015)

Hi. I had tracker,then onto fixed then they wouldn't give me tracker back so went on to SVR.
Requested several times to go back to tracker, refused several times by letter.
Took about 13 months for them to admit they'd made a mistake and I should have been on a tracker.
They paid the difference,and associated costs,as I was forced to move lender,because the PTSB SVR was getting out of control.( 1k over what I should have been paying).They did try to say that as I'd moved lender they would just send me a cheque for the interest balance..Needless to say I didn't accept that!
I was one of the first  if not the only one this happened too.
Only those who have gone through the amount of stress and hassle can understand how difficult this all was.
Looking at the present redress,I'm not convinced that I'm got all that I was entitled too.
And like I said I asked for compensation and was told no ,I asked them to confirm that they were refusing it.Now t seems they are going compensate?
Hope that helps.


----------

