# Success!  Appealed FSO decision to High Court; FSO agreed not to challenge appeal, the day before .



## laure (16 Jan 2015)

Hello,
I am new to this forum and would greatly appreciate your view and comments.
In 2009 we got a loan of 30kfrom BOI with the manager of the agency with whom we had a very good relationship.We have a tracker mortgage and the loan was to be transferred to the mortgage within 6 months. When we apllied to do so it was refused "bank practice have changed" we were told to cut the story short.
We went to the FSO which ruled that BOI was right ( of course no prove of that verbal agreement) without an oral hearing.We have appealed the same on the ground of refusing us an oral hearing ( with BOI manager and another adviser from BOI who also told us it was common practice to transfer loan to mortgage at the time in 2009 ).Before going to the high court FSO agreed to reconsider the whole case .We are not refusing to pay the loan but just want to have it transferred as originally planned as it would be impossible for us to pay it otherwise.The difference in the repayments are massive and we would not have done it .We have no arrears anywhere else.
Anybody with a similar situation?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (16 Jan 2015)

It makes no sense for BoI to hand out a loan only to consolidate it with a cheap tracker mortgage 6 months' later. 

If the Ombudsman rules against you on a claim like this, it makes no sense in appealing it to the High Court, where you could end up with €100k of costs if you lose. 

Brendan


----------



## laure (16 Jan 2015)

Yes it makes no sense but it also makes no financial sense for us to take on a loan when we knew it was beyond our means in terms of repayments  .That was very clear when we took on the loan with the manager that ONLY because it was to be transferred  we were doing it .The loan was for house improvement and  it was happening all the time .Our relationship with her was so close that on the day only my husband signed on the paperwork and signed for me as I couldn't make it that day to send the paperwork to Dublin.                                                                                                                             I know its her word against mine  and i am pretty sure that she will deny everything   in an oral hearing with the FSO.


----------



## Monbretia (17 Jan 2015)

The trouble was bank policy changed in the intervening time due to the financial situation in the country, she can't help it and neither can you.   Similar situations were where people were advised to go with a sub prime lender and they could switch back to a main bank in a year or two but crash happened and banks wouldn't take them back on, another example guarantors on loans were told they come come off after a year or two, again didn't happen.

None of these things were given in writing because simply you wouldn't be allowed to as no one could guarantee or predict the future but based on past policies employees saw no reason why it would change barring something drastic, which as we all know is exactly what happened.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (17 Jan 2015)

Hi Monbretia

Have you heard of the bank offering personal loans and agreeing to add them to the mortgage 6 months later?  I haven't.  It seems very odd to me. 

Brendan


----------



## Monbretia (19 Jan 2015)

Brendan, there were many situations where for the purposes of speed a personal loan would be drawn down in a day whereas applying for a top up on a mortgage could take a lot longer.  Reasons could be the mortgage might not be fully drawn down at the time (maybe stage payments, self build or renovations) in which case a top up couldn't be done or it could be on a 6 mth introductory offer that you couldn't amend until end of term, lots of different circumstances can arise where this would not have been uncommon.   Once everything was sorted with the mortgage then you would just do a top up to it and clear the personal loan. 

Unfortunately for OP the time lapse in this case was at a critical point in the Irish banking system and obviously this bank was not going to increase it's tracker debt or even top up mortgages maybe.


I was off sick for 4 weeks in 2009, when I came back to work it was like a different world, trackers were gone, mortgages were severely curtailed, personal lending next to impossible, it was quite incredible how quickly things changed.

PS I don't know about AIB but where I worked in 2009 branch calls were never recorded, only calls to Head Office call centres.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (19 Jan 2015)

Monbretia said:


> Brendan, there were many situations where for the purposes of speed a personal loan would be drawn down in a day whereas applying for a top up on a mortgage could take a lot longer.



Thanks for that Monbretia. I hadn't heard of it before. 

So the OP took out a €30k loan over 5 years at,say, 12% on the understanding that it could be switched to a 25 year loan at, say, 5%. That would be a difference of €500 a month in repayments. 

It would be very hard for the Ombudsman to uphold such a complaint.  The complainant would have to have some evidence of it, e.g. an email or a letter.  There is zero chance that the High Court would overturn the Ombudsman's decision. 

Brendan


----------



## thedaddyman (19 Jan 2015)

I note the original post says that you were dealing with the "manager of the agency".  Were you dealing with the bank direct or a 3rd party intermediary?. If the latter, they may not have had the authority to promise what you said was promised and your case may not be against BOI but rather against the agent and his company

Secondly, I note your husband signed on your behalf. There have been cases where the courts have upheld complaints when this has happened but like any court judgement each case would have to be judged on it's merits and it's far from certain that it would apply in your case.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/bank-allowed-husband-to-sign-on-wifes-behalf-26459190.html

What is clear is that the bank failed to follow it's procedures by allowing your husband to sign on your behalf (I'm assuming it was a joint application requiring duel signatures) and that you admit they sold you a loan you can't afford. To me, that is the grounds for any complaint, not a failure to adhere to a verbal agreement which it's likely has never been recorded anywhere


----------



## Monbretia (19 Jan 2015)

The signatures on the loan acceptance and draw down documents will be the important ones as opposed to the application form.


----------



## laure (19 Jan 2015)

To thedaddyman,

The loan is at a 9.97 % , our mortgage is at 1.3% over 25 years ! In essence, that alone, should prove that we are telling the truth.The difficulty is to prove it .We are meeting with our solicitor next week so  I really appreciate your comments on this matter.


----------



## Monbretia (19 Jan 2015)

I don't doubt your side of the story at all, totally believe it, but again the trouble was bank policy changed in the intervening time and staff could do nothing to fulfill what used to be normal enough transactions.


----------



## thedaddyman (20 Jan 2015)

laure said:


> To thedaddyman,
> 
> The loan is at a 9.97 % , our mortgage is at 1.3% over 25 years ! In essence, that alone, should prove that we are telling the truth.The difficulty is to prove it .We are meeting with our solicitor next week so  I really appreciate your comments on this matter.


 
Interest rates differences don't prove anything. All the bank has to say is that either they never said or that you misunderstood what was said and it becomes a case of your word against theirs. I'm not doubting what you are saying but you simply can't prove it is true at the minute.

There has also been some comments about fraud in other posts on this thread. To me, your case is less about fraud and more about incompetence and failure to follow proper controls and procedures.


----------



## 44brendan (20 Jan 2015)

Your best approach here is to continue being a nusiance to the Bank and hope that they will allow you some leeway!! Without definite proof they are unlikely to change their stance on not allowing the loan to be added to the mortgage. However, they do have the power to give you some flexibility on both rate and term and you should try to negotiate a compromise with hem based on the very particular circumstances that applied to your case. The difficulty with your current approach is that there appears to be no middle ground. Any reasonable banker should be able to negotiate a compromise with you.
Unfortunately it would appear that reasonable people are fairly thin on the ground in banking circles


----------



## laure (20 Jan 2015)

Thank you all for your thoughts on our situation and please keep writing !Our solicitor is gathering more info and getting her figures right as what would the cost be on the original loan or if it had been transferred to our mortgage , repayments case a and repayment case b etc ... .The FSO hasn't been in touch with us yet but the bank is asking for the full repayment of the loan within 7 days , they are not going down the road of mediation that's for sure !
I should be meeting with our solicitor in the next few days. Thank you.


----------



## laure (18 Nov 2015)

Just an update, we are still waiting to hear from FSO after a letter from our barrister was sent to them regarding the request for an oral hearing .He doesn't think that we will get anywhere near a solution with them and that the next move will be taking BOI to court regarding the loan. Nobody is getting stress over it but us ! Thank you.


----------



## bogstandard (14 Dec 2015)

Instead of racking up all the costs of high court action, why not try and come to an accommodation and have the loan added to your mortgage at current mortgage rate.

Not a perfect solution,  but BOI have five year fixed rates at about 3.7%.

Obviously just the short term loan is at this rate. Its probably the best target solution to aim for as even if you eventually won the case, the costs in time and stress are simply not worth it.


----------



## 44brendan (15 Dec 2015)

laure said:


> Just an update, we are still waiting to hear from FSO after a letter from our barrister was sent to them regarding the request for an oral hearing .He doesn't think that we will get anywhere near a solution with them and that the next move will be taking BOI to court regarding the loan. Nobody is getting stress over it but us ! Thank you.


I can't understand why there is no compromise being reached here. Has anyone picked up the phone and spoken with an involved bank official? FSO and Court are all very well but from my understanding of the situation the OP is relying on a verbal promise which is disputed. Talk is much cheaper that solicitors fees!!


----------



## todo (6 Jan 2016)

Hi ,
      I'm not surprised that BOI wont admit or own up to this. The FSO should have held an oral hearing and put the original Bank Manager on the stand. Very unfair that this was not done during the process.

You mentioned that the FSO are reconsidering the case. So I understand from this that they have already found against you? and now they are looking at it again?

How did you manage to make them reconsider it, I thought the only option after they make their ruling was the high court.


----------



## laure (12 Jan 2017)

Hi All,
Well a year on and we won!!!!!!!
We finally got our oral hearing from the FSO after appealing their first decision to the high court.
Before it went to he high court ( The day before to be precise) , the FSO offered to reconsider the file  and subsequently gave us a date for an oral hearing.
On the day of the oral hearing ,as we were ready to enter and give our statements  , the representatives of BOI asked if we could have a meeting as they wanted to settle the case before any oral hearing.
We had nothing to lose listening to them and we always always kept the communication's lines opened with BOI anyway so we agreed and went to another room.
As my husband and I sat down ( couldn't afford a solicitor anymore so we were representing ourselves ) BOI offered a full settlement by writing off the loan all together and end any further complaint through the FSO or through the court.
I won't lie and saying that we were expecting this and it took us a few minutes to realise that after 7 hard years of fighting we had finally won more than we were asking for !
So for everybody out there keep fighting !
Thank you all for your comments help and just reading my post .
laure.


----------



## roncondon (12 Jan 2017)

Well done you


----------



## todo (13 Jan 2017)

laure said:


> Hi All,
> Well a year on and we won!!!!!!!
> We finally got our oral hearing from the FSO after appealing their first decision to the high court.
> Before it went to he high court ( The day before to be precise) , the FSO offered to reconsider the file  and subsequently gave us a date for an oral hearing.
> ...



Hi Laure,
       Well done and I've got to say much respect is deserved to you and your husband for going all the way, with so much at stake if costs were awarded against you.

I wish I had the same courage, but the system is designed in such away that you can't appeal the FSO's decision without the risk of financial ruin. 

Well done again.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (13 Jan 2017)

Hi Laure - that is fantastic news. Well done and thanks for taking the time to update us on the outcome.  I have edited the thread title to reflect the outcome. 


Astonishing to get it written off, whereas you would have been quite happy to have the €30k added to your mortgage.

I am a bit confused about the timeline here.  Could you fill in some of the dates for us?   The reason they are important is that it tells us how long it takes to process a complaint like this. It also tells us whether the decision not to object to the request for an oral hearing was under Bill Prasifka or under the new FSO, who seems more pragmatic.

2009 - €30 loan granted
          Complained to FSO
          FSO rejected complaint without an oral hearing.

2015(?)   High Court case due for hearing
             FSO agreed to have an oral hearing.

late 2016 - Oral hearing due

Bank wrote off loan.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (13 Jan 2017)

And what is the story on legal costs? 

Did you have to pay your solicitor and barrister up front for the challenge to the FSO's decision? 

How much? And did the the FSO pay your costs? 

Brendan


----------



## Gerry Canning (13 Jan 2017)

Just wondering.

Could it be that BOI were afraid that since loan was signed by Husband only , that to have that poor practice highlighted in Court was too dangerous .
I think quite a few of us know cases were the signor was not the recipient of the loan .
So by paying up, BOI avoids other (worms?)


----------



## Lone Star (19 Jan 2017)

Well done Laure!!! Fair fecks to you!!!!!!


----------



## Sophrosyne (20 Jan 2017)

Brendan Burgess said:


> It also tells us whether the decision not to object to the request for an oral hearing was under Bill Prasifka or under the new FSO, who seems more pragmatic.



This would be very interesting.


----------



## Bronte (20 Jan 2017)

Wow Laure you are just fantastic and such an inspiration.  Well done you. 

I have nothing but contempt for the FO and the bank.  Disgusting behavior. 

For anybody else, now you see how they fold like a pack of cards if you put it up to them.  But not many people have the stomach for this.  Laure is lucky in one respect, timing is excellent as there is a turnarond in view of the FO's previous actions, and the banks of course.  It's gone from everything stacked in their favour against the customers.


----------



## Bronte (20 Jan 2017)

BB does the FO ever pay your legal costs?

Also I presume Laure signed a confidentiality agreement.  If by any chance she didn't I'd love it it were in mainstream media. 

This is a great story.  Delighted I came onto AAM today.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Jan 2017)

Bronte said:


> BB does the FO ever pay your legal costs?



I don't ever incur legal costs. 

Brendan


----------



## cremeegg (20 Jan 2017)

Some replies seem to think that the FSO changed its mind before the High Court, but from my reading it was BOI who made a settlement offer. Perhaps you could clarify.


----------



## DirectDevil (5 Apr 2017)

Laure, I am seriously impressed. Well played.

I too would be interested to know what happened in relation to legal costs. I am not asking for numbers but just to know what costs were covered. If you cannot answer for confidentiality reasons that is fine.

I had a minor (in *quantitative* terms) issue with an insurer. I referred it to the FSOB who found against me. I felt that the decision was poor and worth appealing on *qualitative* grounds. However, the prospect of a High Court case ruled out immediately any question of appeal.

My understanding of what would have happened is this ;

You present a complaint to the FSOB against the financial institution.
If the FSOB finds against you that is a decision which is legally binding on both the complainant and the institution.                  There are no legal costs incurred up to this point so your only loss is your time.
If the complainant appeals it has to be to the High Court by way of a Notice of Motion. If you proceed that way I think that both the FSOB and the institution must both be notice parties to the proceedings. Therefore, the appealing complainant effectively becomes the plaintiff in a High Court action against 2 defendants both of whom may seek orders for costs if the complainant loses.
AFAIK either party to the original FSOB ruling has the right to appeal. So, a complainant who wins via the FSOB might find themselves in the High Court as a defendant with it's associated financial risks if the financial institution decides to appeal.

IMHO the appeal option is a definite deterrent to any individual who might want to overturn a FSOB ruling. A fortiori, Laure's success was a significant win.


----------

