# High Court upholds PTSB's challenge to Ombudsman's decision on tracker mortgages



## Brendan Burgess (28 Oct 2011)

[broken link removed]



> The court heard the couple took out a mortgage for  €395,000 with the lender in 2007 with the interest rate fixed for the  first three years, after which the rate would revert to a tracker rate  following ECB rates.
> In January 2009, they contacted Permanent  TSB’s Lucan branch concerning whether there was an exit fee for the  fixed-rate mortgage. They said they were told there was “no penalty” and  the couple then switched rates.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Deisce (3 Nov 2011)

Thats gas. I did the exact same around the same time. Rang them for the no penalty change from my fixed to the variable. Always wondered why they let us off with the penalty for breaking fixed rate. We had fixed at 5.10% in 2007 and then changed to variable rate of 3.45% in Feb 2009.

Thought I was the one screwing them out of money at the time. What a Fool!

Turned the house over there to find an offer letter but can't find it.


----------



## kaza (9 Nov 2011)

Oh thanks for that I will be logging in on the 16th November then to hear the results. We have a very very similar issue with PTSB - except in my case I went to them in Jan 2009 worried about whether I would get my tracker rate back at end of my fixed period (because they had stopped offering trackers). I was told by them no I would not get my tracker back! So went with what I thought was the second best option from them & moved from fixed to variable with no penalties - thinking a small saving was better than none at all!

Turns out my terms and conditions state I should have been offered tracker back at end of fixed period (which I did not realise at the time) but because I broke out of my fixed period it was null & void.

PTSB are now saying they would never have told me "No Tracker" at end of fixed period and I would have being informed of the fact that moving from fixed would have meant loss of my tracker! I spoke to someone in branch and over the phone but they cannot find the phone records even though I have the persons name and date of phone call.

I have contacted the Ombudsman - just waiting on final response letter from PTSB to move forward with it. So really interested to see whether this case will be over turned or not - for our sake I really really hope it isn't. It means alot of money to us and I really feel PTSB "offered" this no penalty break out of fixed in Jan 2009 so as people like me would break out and hence break our tracker terms and conditions. What annoys me the most is I pushed them for my tracker back and was told I would not get it back - but they are now saying they would never have said this to me!


----------



## taldar (10 Nov 2011)

Hi Kaza

There is another case above where ptsb did not forward the phone records to the ombudsman, the ombudsman ruled against the couple, then the couple brought it to the High Court and ptsb had to give the ombudsman the phone records.  It is back with the ombudsman now for review.  I have not seen anything on this case since.


----------



## taldar (16 Nov 2011)

Judge put this back to the ombudsman to review again, he ruled it was not a "fiduciary relationship"- Wait another 6 months so!


----------



## George12 (16 Nov 2011)

I cannot find any reference in the media to this judgment at the moment.  My thoughts would be that if a fiduciary relationship does not exist it is going to be difficult for the Ombudsman to find in favour of the couple second time around.  I do hope I am wrong.....


----------



## Brendan Burgess (17 Nov 2011)

[broken link removed]



> The ombudsman has been directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with the court’s findings.
> 
> In his decision, Mr Justice White found the ombudsman made serious  and significant errors in his finding upholding the couple’s complaint.
> 
> ...



The full judgement can be read [broken link removed]


----------



## taldar (17 Nov 2011)

Hi Brendan

Yes I hope he does. We have the exact same issue with the FSO but we did not go to the branch. We called on the phone(recorded) and sent letters. PTSB argued in this case the couple were told in the branch that they would lose the price promise on tracker. They cannot do that in our case. 

The bank knew exactly what they were doing at the time and came out with a story where they had a problem with the system and this is why there was no breakage fee.


Anyway, as I said, long road!

Cheers

Taldar


----------



## Sunny (17 Nov 2011)

The most interesting statement was the Court found they were not in a fiduciary relationship. Sounds like people are going to have rely on consumer protection legislation if they wish to make a complaint.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (17 Nov 2011)

On reflection, I am a bit confused by this. 

If one was on a fixed rate of 5% and entitled to a tracker on expiry of the fixed rate, what rate were you put on through switching early on? 

Petal sets out the issue in this post from Jan 2009

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=775706&postcount=16



> I've been onto PTSB regarding breaking the fixed rate (1 year left). I'm  fixed at 4.85, they offered me 4.65 varibale rate and no penalties. So I  asked them if I wait till fixed rate expires will I go back onto my  original tracker and they said yes i will fall onto the tracker  available at the time my fixed rate expires. I have to do some  calculating, but I'm pretty certain I'll be better off sitting out the  year and falling back onto a tracker rather than going on a variable  now.


----------



## George12 (17 Nov 2011)

Whatever variable rate was in place at that date. Before August 2009 the variable rates were very attractive in comparison with existing fixed ones. I am disappointed with yesterday's result, a very legalistic approach. Why couldnt he make the final decision without referring it back to the ombudsman?


----------



## taldar (17 Nov 2011)

All is not lost George, It is better to go back to FSO than get a final ruling against it.  I went through the 2006 Consumer act last night and picked 6 conditions in it where the bank were at fault.  I will be pointing these out the to FSO in our case.

PS: We were on fixed rate 5.35%, switched to 4.9% as wife was going on maternity leave. 6 months of fixed left at the time!


----------



## NorfBank (17 Nov 2011)

taldar said:


> PS: We were on fixed rate 5.35%, switched to 4.9% as wife was going on maternity leave. 6 months of fixed left at the time!


 
The crux of the current case is this:

_The ombudsman had failed to address a conflict of evidence between the couple and the lender as to what was said by it to them concerning switching from the tracker rate, he found._

The bank argued that an assistant manager had said he would clearly have told the couple, once they switched, any “price promise” regarding a tracker would be null and void.

Was this was happened?


Couple were stressed out due to financial difficulties stemming from the fact one of them had lost their job.
The variable rate would have meant lower repayments and as they were under pressure they were happy to go onto the variable rate.
The loss of the "price promise" was mentioned to them but due to the pressure they were under, they heard it but didn't understand it. They signed up for the variable rate anyway.
On reflection after reports in the media, they realised that they had made a mistake in coming off the fixed rate as they lost their right to a tracker.
As the court ruled, there is only a duty of care between the lender and the client, when the bank official had mentioned the price promise, the lender had fulfilled their duty of reasonable care. 

The new CPC 2012 will force the lenders to give written information and warnings about long-term effects of changing from a tracker interest rate and allow consumers a cooling-off period.

This did not apply to the 2006 Code, there was only a duty of care.

It looks like all cases in the pipeline will be decided on whether the loss of the price promise was mentioned to the client. 

taldar, did PTSB ever tell you that you would lose your right to a tracker?

[broken link removed]


----------



## taldar (17 Nov 2011)

Yes I agree, we did not go to a branch like that couple, just calls which are recorded and letters, there was no mention of anything about price promise or tracker not being available to us and in fact the words used by the bank were "no penalty".  We have this in our letter requesting the change.  The real penalty was the tracker was not available.


----------



## shoppergal (20 Nov 2011)

I'm interested that the Ombudsman found for this couple in the first place. 

We had the exact same situation with PTSB and the Ombudsman ruled against us on the basis that PTSB had no obligation to tell us that we would not be entitled to our tracker and that there was no guarantee that if we had been told that we would have acted any differently.


----------



## kaza (21 Nov 2011)

In our case I went into a branch in Jan 2009 as I was worried about getting our tracker back at the end of our fixed rate in Aug 2009 (5.15%). I was unaware of my terms and conditions at the time but they clearly told me that I would not get my tracker back in August 2009. I was told I could move to variable of 4.65% with no penalties, and that I would then get a further .5% reduction in line with ECB reduction in Feb 2009. I was told that only existing variable rate customers would get the .5% reduction in Feb and this rate would not apply to new variable rate customers after Feb 2009 - so if I moved in Jan 2009 to variable I would be on 4.15% in Feb, where as if I waited until my fixed rate ended in August 2009 I would go onto the variable rate for new customers of 4.65% (if it was still that in the August but basically I would loose out on the .5% Feb reduction).

I went away and thought about it - my friend took the offer up and I thought I might as well get some reduction rather than nothing! So I rang them to say yes I would take the break out. I cannot remember the exact wording of the phone call as it was Jan 2009 but I am certain I reiterated what I had being told and that I was not entitled to my tracker back.

PTSB up until August this year (2011) had continued to tell me that no I would not have gotten my tracker back in August 2009. When I produced my terms and conditions then they changed their story and started to say that yes I would have gotten my tracker back and they would have not told me that I was not going to get it back - this is nearly what is annoying me the most - they now changed their story and I have no proof as such to say they are lying!

PTSB have said they checked their phone records but have no record of my phone call even though I have given them the date and name of the person I spoke to.

I might just be a bitter customer - but I really feel like PTSB knew what they where doing back in Jan 2009 and it is now being dubbed as a computer glitch!!!


----------



## Brendan Burgess (21 Nov 2011)

I think that you guys need to get together and form some type of campaign.

PTSB is charging a 6% standard variable rate, so if you lose your Ombudsmans cases, this will be very expensive for you.

Given that most of the complaints here seem to be about the "PTSB fixed to variable rate and lose tracker " issue, I think you should be calling on the Financial Regulator to do a systemic enquiry of this practice. 

There may be hundreds of people who have lost their trackers who are not informed enough or empowered enough to complain.

I keep reminding people - Michael Noonan is the 99% shareholder in PTSB. This should be relatively simple to sort out if you put the pressure on the right place. 

The pressure has been taken off by the political  focus on "Bad boys AIB did not pass on 0.25% cut in the SVR". You guys need to organise yourselves to get the focus on the much bigger problem.

Brendan


----------



## kaza (21 Nov 2011)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I think that you guys need to get together and form some type of campaign.
> 
> PTSB is charging a 6% standard variable rate, so if you lose your Ombudsmans cases, this will be very expensive for you.



I will keep you all updated with my case as it progresses - at the moment I am waiting on a final letter from PTSB before passing it back to the Ombudsman. But if my case if refused (which it probably will be) I definitely am not happy to just accept it - I will be trying to push forward with it as far as I can.

And yes it will cost us a fortune in interest if the rates stay around 6% - in my case approx €160,000 over the rest of the term of my mortgage (taking tracker as 3% and variable as 6%) will be paid extra in interest.


----------



## George12 (21 Nov 2011)

I agree with Brendan too, we need to click together and fight them as a class rather than as individuals. A handful of people have posted about their plight here but there must be many many more who are not even aware that the issue applies to them. I question when PTSB adds to its' press release when it is raising varaible rates that only a handful of people are on variable rates and most have very old mortgages that are charged little interest anyway, can this be true? When I read such things I think I am the only fool out there who ended up with a variable mortgage in recent times.


----------



## hope64 (26 Jan 2012)

i have especially registered here to share my story.in january 2009 we broke out of our fixed rate and into a standard variable during a meeting with a bank member that wasnt even set up to discuss interest rates. originally we had a tracker in 2004 when we first drew down our morgage and then fixed it in 2007 to a 3 year fixed rate. during this meeting we were specifically advised to come out of our fixed rate early and into a variable rate which was lower then the fixed rate at the time. we were informed that tracker morgages no longer existed and that we could not ever get a tracker back. we also came out of our fixed rate penelty free. little did we know at the time we were paying the biggest penelty of all by loosing our tracker. since then we have got a copy of our terms and conditions and oh yes we could have reverted back to a tracker if we completed the fixed term. currently our case is under investigation by financial ombudsman. just going through the motions. i think permanent tsb are an absolute disgrace. i no longer feel any loyalty towards them. maybe when the ombudsman sees that there is a lot more then 1 case going for investigation more questions will be asked re ptsb.


----------



## kaza (26 Jan 2012)

Hope64 I have a very similar story to you which I posted at the start of the thread. I also have a case with the Ombudsman and here is what has happened so far:

1. Contact Ombudsman, told to get final letter from PTSB
2. After much stalling & delay from PTSB & warning letter from Ombudsman to PTSB finally got a final letter from PTSB. In it they state that I had being told verbally I would get my tracker back when I entered fixed so because of that I knew I was entitled to tracker when I broke out of fixed. However, I broke out of fixed because at the time PTSB said that a verbal agreement was not binding and had no standing! So they switch it to suit themselves.
3. Ombudsman issued letter to PTSB and us asking for mediation, we agreed but PTSB did not.
4. Got letter from Ombudsman to say they will investigate our case now but because of back log it will be about 20 weeks before they can start.

So it is a long road, but I will follow this through until the end because I feel so ripped off by PTSB.

What stage is your case at?


----------



## hope64 (26 Jan 2012)

hi kaza. permanent tsb did reply to our complaint and they claim that they would never advise to come out of a fixed rate early went on and on in the letter how we signed all the documentation to switch but only gave us a few lines reguarding our complaint that we were never told about loosing the right to our tracker and how we were misled an d misinformed by this staff member. we have waited our 20wks with ombudsman and investigation has commenced. basically he has sent in a letter asking various questions to ptsb about our case. they have 20 days to respond to him, he will then ask us to reply to their response within 10working days and finally they will have 5 days to respond to what we have said. so im guessing it will be wrapped up in about 6 weeks time. im hoping the ombudsman realises the extent that permanent tsb misled there customers over trackers! am soooo angry with them. best of look with ure case. how long have you been waiting?


----------



## GettingThere (27 Jan 2012)

Firstly best of luck with your cases!
Long time lurker, but want to share my experience to date with the ombudsman.
I opened a case back in Feb 2011 on very similar grounds to the previous poster. Basicaly I was on a fixed rate, called PTSB to discuss options (not being aware I had the option of a tracker at expriry of fixed term). As variable rate was lower at the time, I wanted to see what my options were. They ran through my monthly payments and what they would be if I went to variable. Basically was advised that repayment would be much lower if I went on variable and requested to break fixed rate. I did and was delighted at the reduction in payments.....
Subsequently found my original docs and saw that I was entitled to go onto tracker at the end of the 2 year fixed term (had <6 months remaining) and tracker was 1% above ECB...Extremely shoddy on my part, but the documents were mislaid at the time and I wasnt aware that I had that tracker clause.
Moving on a few years to when I discovered the docs, I rang the bank incensed that they neglected to inform me that i had a tracker at the end of the fixed rate and they efectively incentivised me moving to variable by rescinding  break out fee from the fixed term...They effectively said tough luck..
Went to the ombudsman last Feb and followed the same process as outlined by the previous poster. Replied to several questions as did the lender. No mediation was taken up. Lender in their responses said they had no obligation to disclose the fact that I had a tracker option and they denied in any way advising me to move to variable. The case moved to investigation and advice was 20 weeks or so to judgement.
Ombudsman came back to me sometime in November with a letter saying that they had adjudicated on several cases similar to mine, but the lender had appealed. The wished to wait until high court rulings were delivered and reviewed until deciding on how to proceed with my case. 
Very fair and professional dealings with the ombudsman so far and they advised that it would be some time after Christmas before they would be in a position to advise further. 
From reviewing high court cases I think that they are referring to the case where PTSB brought the ombudsmans decision in a similar case to the high court based on the ombudsmans decision that the lender had a fiduciary obligation to the lender. The high court ruled that the lender had no such obligation. However, the judge inferred that there may be a case under the consumer protection code (where the lender should act in the best interest of the customer) that should be reviewed. 
I'm not sure if that has been revisited at this stage in the high court but am aware of other cases which are on hold based on review of the ombudsman of this.

Sorry for the ramble, but wanted to share my experienc. I'm optimistic that the ombudsman is pursuing the case to the letter of the law. Hopefully regardess of fiduciary responsibility, the high court and ombudsman will recognise that sharp practice has been at play and there was scant regard for the best interest of the consumer. Im thinking that the delay is due to the fact that the ombudsman is reframing some of its cases in that new light.

Good luck and we'll fight the good fight. Best of luck to you all


----------



## GettingThere (24 May 2012)

exact same situation as you Kaza. My initial response from the ombudsman was in Feb 2011 and I recently got a letter stating that the pertinent cases were due in the high court on June 12th. Based on that outcome, my case would move to investigation.
Long road, but hopefully one with a bebficial outcome.

As to whether the PTSB will have the stomach to fight these cases if they are moving the tracker book to the bad bank...I think they will still fight as in my case they have a very profitable SVR if the ombudsman sides with them. I'm not in arrears and while paying through the nose, I'm managing to meet the extortionate (not as extortionate as the erstwhile 6.19%) SVR payment rates. 
Plus if they were to rescind their status and revert me to tracker as they rightfully should they will be on the hook for compensation for the overpayments (the difference between the correct tracker payments and the inflated SVR payments for almost 5 years, so maybe > 20K). Small potatoes to them, but multiply that out for the thousands of others who will pursue this precedent.

So I dont think the premise of moving the tracker book to IBRC or wherever is diluting the appetite of the predatory PTSB in these cases..but thats just my opinion. I really cant see them capitulating. 

Either way, the Ombudsman will have to decide based on this case on June 12..Fingers crossed and good luck!


----------



## GettingThere (19 Jun 2012)

Case was heard and judgement was reserved. Ruling will be delivered by end of July... Sorry , not more details, but at least its still out there


----------



## taldar (11 Jul 2012)

Looks like the decision on this will be the 19th July.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (17 Jul 2012)

I am still confused about what ruling is due tomorrow.

The High Court upheld PTSB's challenge and told the Ombudsman to review the case again.

Has the Ombudsman appealed this to the Supreme Court? 

We are expecting a ruling tomorrow but whose ruling is it?


----------



## smithcat (17 Jul 2012)

Hi Brendan,

First time post but have been watching this particular thread with a great deal of interest as I also have a case pending with the FSO pending on the result of this case.

A couple of weeks back FSO sent out letters to people in a similar issue stating that this case was being re-appealed through the High Court.  I believe the case was heard by the High Court in June and the Judge expected to deliver a verdict by end of July.  

Hope this clears up your question.


----------



## smithcat (17 Jul 2012)

Also I have a question to all people looking at this thread with a similar on-going case.  When you decided to break from the Fixed to a Variable rate did you have to pay an "exit fee"?

In some cases I can see that people did not have to pay an exit fee and yet others did.  I raised this in my initial complaint to PTSB and was told that they had actually made a mistake and that I actually only covered 10% of what the real cost for breaking out should have been.

From my basic knowledge of contracts I assumed that if all the terms and conditions had not been met correctly by both parties then anything subsequently is null and void.  Is this a simplistic view of the world?? Since PTSB admitted to making a mistake my argument is that my original contract should still be in place.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (17 Jul 2012)

smithcat said:


> A couple of weeks back FSO sent out letters to people in a similar issue stating that this case was being re-appealed through the High Court.



Thanks cat

Would you have the letter to hand. What was the actual wording? 

A High Court decision can be appealed to the Supreme Court. 

I wasn't aware that something could be "re-appealed".


----------



## smithcat (18 Jul 2012)

Sorry I have read the letter again from the ombudsman and my earlier post is incorrect.  The letter states...
"I write to advise you that a number of appeals to the High Court by PTSB, arising out of Findings previously made by the Financial Service Ombudsman, we're heard before the High Court on 12-14 June 2012...intention to deliver judgement prior to the end of July 2012."


----------



## Brendan Burgess (18 Jul 2012)

Thanks for the clarification.

I wonder why I can't find any information about these High Court cases online? 

Brendan


----------



## GettingThere (22 Jul 2012)

Ditto,
the only information I am receiving on this is letters from the ombudsman.y 
Very frustrating there is no online record.

Apparantly the ruling was on the 19th, ?? but Im none the wiser until I get a letter...

waiting.....


----------



## taldar (23 Jul 2012)

I cannot find the ruling either but it was in the diary for the 19th

IN COURT 26
MR JUSTICE HOGAN
AT 10.45 O'CLOCK 
2011 253 MCA IRISH LIFE & PERMANENT PLC T/A PERMANENT TSB -V- FINANCIAL SERVICES 
2011 234 MCA IRISH LIFE AND PERMANENT PLC T/A PERMANENT TSB -V- FINANCIAL SERVICES 
2011 264 MCA IRISH LIFE & PERMANENT PLC T/A PERMANENT TSB -V- FINANCIAL SERVICES 
2011 273 MCA PERMANENT TSB -V- FINANCIAL SERVICES OMBUDSMAN

Unless it was re-scheduled.


----------



## smithcat (30 Jul 2012)

Has anyone received any updates in relation to the courts ruling?


----------



## taldar (30 Jul 2012)

Hi Smithcat

No, not a word yet!

No news is good news as they say!


----------



## kaza (30 Jul 2012)

I was wondering if you rang the High Court with the codes above and asked for an update on the ruling would they give it? Surely they'd have to because it's public?


----------



## taldar (30 Jul 2012)

Looks like it was put back to 31/7/2012 - Tomorrow

I am nervous now!!!!!

MR JUSTICE HOGAN
2000 14839 P O SULLIVAN -V- ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BOARD 1045 
2011 234 MCA IRISH LIFE AND PERMANENT PLC T/A PERMANENT TSB -V- FINANCIAL SERVICES 1045 
2011 1645 S WESTPARK INVESTMENT LIMITED & ANOR -V- LEISURE WORLD LIMITED & ANOR 1045 
2011 273 MCA PERMANENT TSB -V- FINANCIAL SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 1045 
2012 478 JR A & ANOR -V- MJE & ORS 1045 
2011 264 MCA IRISH LIFE & PERMANENT PLC T/A PERMANENT TSB -V- FINANCIAL SERVICES 1045 
2011 253 MCA IRISH LIFE & PERMANENT PLC T/A PERMANENT TSB -V- FINANCIAL SERVICES 1045


----------



## taldar (31 Jul 2012)

Judgement was given this morning

IN COURT 26
MR JUSTICE HOGAN
AT 10.45 O'CLOCK 
JUDGMENT

Should have the judgement uploaded tomorrow on courts.ie - I could not make it in today to hear.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (31 Jul 2012)

In one case, where the customer appealed the Ombudsman's decision in favour of PTSB, the High Court upheld the Ombudsman's decision that PTSB were right to kick a borrower off interest only after three years as it was in the contract. Summarised here.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (31 Jul 2012)

The High Court upheld the Ombudsman's decision in this case and stated that he was very reluctant to interfere with the Ombudsman's decision.

As the 4 other cases involve PTSB challenging the Ombudsman's decisions in favour of mortgage holders, this case should make you more optimistic, and not less optimistic.

I am trying to get the other cases but I am having no luck.


----------



## GettingThere (1 Aug 2012)

Thanks for the clarification. Just to further clarify (in my own head anyway )

Initially Ombudsman found in favor of the customer.

PTSB appealed to the High Court based on the fact they had no fiduciary obligation to the customer).

Judge sent the case back for review to the ombudsman (This I'm not clear about. I know there was a point of law where the judge didnt uphold the appeal, but advised the ombudsman to review and endorse findings with the consumer protection laws rather than relying on fiduciary obligation on the lenders side). At this point the ombudsman mailed out all the people who have cases of similar merit advising that until there was a judgement there would be no further progress. Depending on the judgement, the cases may then move to investigation phase. 

Came up again and the judge reserved judgement in early July.

Today judge upholds ombudsmans decision as per other thread.

Is that a reasonable synopsis?

So customers in similar situation to myself (those in this thread taldar, kaza etc) should expect a letter later this week from the ombudsman advising their cases move to investigation stage?

Forgive me if I've gotten wires crossed, but thats my reading on it and welcome correction


----------



## taldar (1 Aug 2012)

Hi GettingThere

I do not think you are far off the mark there, the only thing is we have not seen the Judgement about the case that involves our issue.

As far as i can see it is essentially a test case using the CPC 2006 with the High court as the bank keep appealing the FSO decisions in favour of customers, so whatever happens in this case will happen in ours.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (1 Aug 2012)

There seems to be three or four cases where PTSB is appealing the Ombudsman's decisions. I can't find reports of these cases anywhere. 

The judgements are due this week, but they might be delayed


----------



## GettingThere (3 Aug 2012)

Would have thought there to be some coverage of this in the media (irishtimes.com used to have commentary on cases like this).
Anyway, havent got a letter yet from the ombudsman (please post if you get one). Am expecting one in the coming wee stating that my case is moving to investigation following the decision by the court not to uphold the appeal by the PTSB...

The rate moving from 6.19% to 4.34 has meant my mortgage has gone from 2025 pm to 1775, but the possibility of returning to a tracker of ECB +1.1 would make another huge dent in the outlay...

Here's hoping...

Good luck


----------



## hope64 (3 Aug 2012)

Received a letter from FSO yesterday stating that we are still waiting judgement from the High Court and until judgement is delivered he will not be in a position to advise further as to timeframes or outcomes.. 
It is hoped that judgement will be delivered very shortly and upon considering the outcome of the high court the bureau will be in contact with all parties.
Guess we just have to wait and see.


----------



## daheff (3 Aug 2012)

if PTSB are found to have been over charging peoples mortgages, you shoudl make sure that PTSB apply the overcharged amount against your principal and back date it to the actual dates they received the money. At that point PTSB should also be pressed to recalculate interest on the mortgage. This could have significant savings for people.


that is unless you need the overcharged amounts back.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (3 Aug 2012)

daheff said:


> you shoudl make sure that PTSB apply the overcharged amount against your principal ....
> 
> that is unless you need the overcharged amounts back.



Hi da

That is not correct.  In fact, the lenders have done this in some cases where the Ombudsman found against them, and the customer had to go back to the Ombudsman to get the overpayment paid directly to them and not just set against their mortgage.

Let's say that the mortgage today has a balance outstanding of €150,000

1) PTSB should recalculate your account applying the correct interest rates going back to when they first charged the wrong rates.
2) That will give a corrected balance of €140,000 today. 
3) You should get a cheque for the €10,000 difference and you can choose what to do with it. 

This is very important. If they had charged the right rates, you would owe them €140,000 today. For most people, that is where they want to be. 

If you have overpaid by €10,000 you should get a direct refund of €10,000 and you may prefer to pay off a credit card or a car loan.

Most people would not pay off  a cheap tracker unless the lender gives them an incentive to do so.

Brendan


----------



## taldar (3 Aug 2012)

hope64 said:


> Received a letter from FSO yesterday stating that we are still waiting judgement from the High Court and until judgement is delivered he will not be in a position to advise further as to timeframes or outcomes..
> It is hoped that judgement will be delivered very shortly and upon considering the outcome of the high court the bureau will be in contact with all parties.
> Guess we just have to wait and see.


 
I have not recieved the letter yet but it makes me very nervous that the Judge has not delivered his judgement on this yet and has delayed it again.

I would say there is alot going on in the background of this case.


----------



## smithcat (20 Aug 2012)

Has anyone received any further letters from the FSO regarding the status of these cases? We are now coming to the end of August and still no clearer in what is actually happening.
Appreciate any updates...?


----------



## AppleSun (21 Aug 2012)

Hey guys, Same situation here. Though we are only in the process of writing to PTSB.
The Final letter from PTSB that you need to have before going to the FSO...what is that exactly? Do you need to send the initial letter via a solicitor or is a letter from ourselves sufficient?


----------



## taldar (22 Aug 2012)

@smithcat

No news yet and I think the courts are on holidays but not sure.

We are still waiting on High Court Judgment.


----------



## GettingThere (23 Aug 2012)

AppleSun said:


> Hey guys, Same situation here. Though we are only in the process of writing to PTSB.
> The Final letter from PTSB that you need to have before going to the FSO...what is that exactly? Do you need to send the initial letter via a solicitor or is a letter from ourselves sufficient?



After you write to PTSB stating your complaint there may be some communications over and back. If their customer service do not satisfy your requests, you can ask them if this is their final letter on the matter when you advise that you will pursue case with ombudsman.
They will be quick to advise that this is their final letter.

Thats all you need..no solicitor etc. Engage the ombudsman who will impartially review and advise on next steps


----------



## taldar (29 Aug 2012)

Recieved a letter from the FSO this morning saying they were awaiting 4 verdicts in the courts, they won two and lost two but no orders have been passed down yet so they are still waiting on this for our cases.

Not sure which cases are which but sure we still have a fighting chance!


----------



## kaza (29 Aug 2012)

taldar said:


> Recieved a letter from the FSO this morning saying they were awaiting 4 verdicts in the courts, they won two and lost two but no orders have been passed down yet so they are still waiting on this for our cases.
> 
> Not sure which cases are which but sure we still have a fighting chance!



What do they mean, do you know, when they say "No orders have been passed down yet"? Is it not as simple the case was won or lost? Or am I missing something?


----------



## smithcat (10 Sep 2012)

I have carried out my daily routine of checking this valuable resource along with the independent.ie (personal finance section) and courts.ie

On the courts website I found the following document that was uploaded on the 7th Sept -> go to courts website -> sitemap -> judgements
"Irish Life and Permanent Plc -v- Financial Services Ombudsman & Ors"

It provides overviews of the 4 cases against PTSB along with the Judge findings.  For me I believe the Healy case is most representative of my issues.  From reading between the lines I believe the Judge upheld the Financial Ombudsman findings and therefore this couple should be able to go back on the tracker mortgage.  This is great news if I have understood correctly.

@Brendan maybe you could review and either confirm/reject my current understanding...

Here's hoping anyway


----------



## GettingThere (10 Sep 2012)

Looks interesting...4 cases appealed and the conclusions of the appeals are:


A. In Foley appeal I propose to make an order pursuant to s. 57CL(2)(b) of the Act of 1942 setting aside the findings and direction of the Ombudsman, together with an order pursuant to s. 57CL(2)(c) remitting the finding to the Ombudsman. 

B. I propose to make an identical order in the Lavery and Lavery-Whelan appeal. 

C. In the Thomas appeal I propose to make an order pursuant to s.57CL(2)(a) affirming the finding of the Financial Services Ombudsman. 

D. In the Healy appeal I propose to make an order pursuant to s. 57CL(2)(a) affirming the finding of the Financial Services Ombudsman, but I will also direct that certain passages (the nature of which I will discuss with counsel) stand edited and removed from the decision of 9th August, 2011.


----------



## GettingThere (10 Sep 2012)

Heres a link to the judgement
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/...a61b07984bcc3d8680257a6f004b05da?OpenDocument

*Note - all four cases are covered by the same Judgment *


----------



## taldar (11 Sep 2012)

That is my reading of it too, will seriously be delighted if we get this sorted in our favour.

The FSO letter I got stated they will have a decision before the end of October.

Taldar


----------



## Brendan Burgess (11 Sep 2012)

I am summarising these 4 cases in a new thread.


----------

