# Ombudsman publishes latest batch of decisions



## Brendan Burgess (7 Aug 2020)

[broken link removed]

I have extracted the tracker cases which he has summarised and attached them to this post.



       A direction to write down 12% of the capital balance on a mortgage, backdated to 2010, following the failure to offer a customer the option to convert to a tracker interest rate mortgage loan in line with the bank’s contractual obligations. The bank was also directed to repay the difference between the interest paid and what would have been paid on the reduced balance.      


       Compensation of €22,000 due to particularly difficult circumstances suffered as a result of significant overcharging resulting from the denial of tracker mortgage interest rate.


       Compensation of €8,000 for overcharging where a tracker interest rate was not applied and a mortgage was restructured.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (7 Aug 2020)

I have provided a link to all the decisions in the following two posts.

The database is a bit awkward to navigate, so if you see any decisions which I have not included please post a reply with a link and in particular the decision number.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (7 Aug 2020)

*Complaints upheld *

It appears that, so far, the Ombudsman has upheld only one systemic issue - the AIB Prevailing Rate issue. I don't think he has rejected any other systemic issues yet but it's hard to know.

Decision Reference 2020 -0103 - AIB Prevailing Rate case which resulted in 5,900 cases getting a 12% write down

Decision Reference 2019-0028  Failure to offer appropriate compensation or redress, 

Decision Reference 2019-0045  Failure to offer appropriate compensation or redress, 

Decision Reference 2020 -012 Failure to offer appropriate compensation or redress,


*Partially upheld*

Decision Reference 2020 -0095  Failure to offer appropriate compensation or redress,

Decision Reference 2020-0025   Failure to offer a tracker rate throughout the life of the mortgage, 

Decision Reference 2020-0116 Refusal to move existing tracker to a new mortgage product, Refusal to grant mortgage 

Decision Reference 2020-0151 Failure to offer a tracker rate throughout the life of the mortgage,  Failure to offer a tracker rate at point of sale 

Decision Reference 2020-0199  Failure to offer a tracker rate throughout the life of the mortgage, 

*Decision Reference 2019-0341   Failure to apply a tracker rate at a point in time, Failure to apply the correct tracker rate 

Decision Reference 2019-0374  Failure to offer a tracker rate throughout the life of the mortgage, 

Decision Reference 2019-0380  Failure to offer a tracker rate at point of sale, Failure to offer a tracker rate throughout the life of the mortgage 

Decision Reference 2020-0003   Failure to offer a tracker rate throughout the life of the mortgage, *


----------



## Brendan Burgess (7 Aug 2020)

Rejected

Decision Reference 2020-0043

Decision Reference 2020-0005  Failure to offer a tracker rate at point of sale, Failure to offer a tracker rate throughout the life of the mortgage 

Decision Reference 2020-0007  Failure to offer a tracker rate throughout the life of the mortgage, 

Decision Reference 2020-0023 Failure to offer a tracker rate throughout the life of the mortgage, 

Decision Reference 2020-0028  Failure to offer a tracker rate throughout the life of the mortgage, 

Decision Reference 2020-0034   Failure to offer a tracker rate throughout the life of the mortgage, 

Decision Reference 2020-0036   Failure to offer a tracker rate throughout the life of the mortgage, 

Decision Reference 2020-0040    Failure to offer a tracker rate throughout the life of the mortgage, 

Decision Reference 2020-0048    Refusal to move existing tracker to a new mortgage product, Failure to offer a tracker rate at point of sale, Failure to offer a tracker rate throughout the life of the mortgage 

Decision Reference 2020-0053   Failure to offer a tracker rate throughout the life of the mortgage, 

Decision Reference 2020-0061   Failure to offer a tracker rate throughout the life of the mortgage, Failure to offer a tracker rate at point of sale 

Decision Reference 2020-0064  Failure to offer a tracker rate throughout the life of the mortgage, 

Decision Reference 2020-0077   Failure to offer a tracker rate throughout the life of the mortgage, Refusal to move existing tracker to a new mortgage product 

Decision Reference 2020-0094    Failure to offer a tracker rate throughout the life of the mortgage, 

Decision Reference 2020-0096   Failure to offer a tracker rate at point of sale, 

Decision Reference 2020-0106  Failure to offer a tracker rate throughout the life of the mortgage, Application of interest rate 

Decision Reference 2020-0123   Failure to offer a tracker rate at point of sale, 

Decision Reference 2020-0138   Failure to offer a tracker rate throughout the life of the mortgage, 

Decision Reference 2020-0150   Failure to offer a tracker rate at point of sale, Failure to offer a tracker rate throughout the life of the mortgage 

Decision Reference 2020-0157   Failure to offer a tracker rate throughout the life of the mortgage, Failure to offer a tracker rate at point of sale 

Decision Reference 2020-0168   Refusal to move existing tracker to a new mortgage product, 

Decision Reference 2020-0171   Failure to offer a tracker rate throughout the life of the mortgage, 

Decision Reference 2020-0177    Failure to offer a tracker rate throughout the life of the mortgage, Application of interest rate 

Decision Reference 2020-0180   Failure to offer a tracker rate throughout the life of the mortgage, 

Decision Reference 2020-0196  Failure to offer a tracker rate throughout the life of the mortgage,


----------



## Brendan Burgess (7 Aug 2020)

Decision Reference 2020-0048 Refusal to move existing tracker to a new mortgage product, Failure to offer a tracker rate at point of sale, Failure to offer a tracker rate throughout the life of the mortgage


----------



## Banquo (8 Aug 2020)

Brendan, thank you for providing the relevant judgements above. I'm curious as I read in one decision that an appeals panel upped the compensation from the initial level by 5 k and this was paid to the complainant. I understood that if you accepted the comp awarded by the appeal panel you didn't have the opportunity to use the ombudsman process, have I got that wrong?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (8 Aug 2020)

Hi Banquo

If you accept the Appeals Panel decision, you can't go to the Ombudsman.  

In which case did something else happen? 

Brendan


----------



## Banquo (8 Aug 2020)

https://www.fspo.ie/decisions/documents/2020-0102.pdf
		

On page 12 the following paragraph reads

_The Provider submits that the Complainant has 
not made out a reasonable claim for additional compensation beyond what the Provider 
and the Appeals Panel has already provided for and was paid by the Provider to the 
Complainant._

I read this as the complainant received the additional compensation arising fron the appeals process and now the ombudsman is reviewing the case?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (10 Aug 2020)

Hi Banquo

We are correct in our understanding.

In this unusual case, the  Financial Services Provider had paid the €5,000 awarded by the Appeals Panel and had not made it clear that it was in full and final settlement, so the guy complained to the Ombudsman anyway.

Brendan


----------



## TomTron (10 Aug 2020)

In my Appeal I was awarded additional monies and accepted them ‘without prejudice’.

The Irish Ombudsman confirmed in writing to me last week , having accepted additional compensation from the Appeal Panel, they would accept a complaint from me for up to 6 years from date of first redress letter. Only caveat raised was that I must be deemed ‘impacted’ by the Tracker issue.

The Appeal Panel decision letter stated I could accept monies offered, have expenses paid and still refer the case to the Ombudsman or the High Court.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (10 Aug 2020)

Hi Tom

Very interesting. 

Which lender was that?  

It makes little sense to me. 

Brendan


----------



## TomTron (10 Aug 2020)

It was Bank of Ireland Brendan

If a customer is unhappy with the decision of the Appeal Panel, they appear to have recourse to the High Court or Ombudsman.

This recourse was confirmed by my solicitor.

I cant see why this would be BoI specific and surely must apply to all 'impacted' cases in Ireland.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (10 Aug 2020)

Hi Tom

I had since discovered it was BoI and have discussed it here






						Bank of Ireland - With Bank of Ireland, you can accept the Appeals Panel decision and go to the Ombudsman
					

In another thread, Banquo pointed out that the  Appeals Panel had awarded the borrower an additional €5,000 compensation, which he got and still went to the Ombudsman where he got another €12,000.  https://www.fspo.ie/decisions/documents/2020-0102.pdf  I thought that this was a mistake, but...



					askaboutmoney.com
				




I don't see why the borrower is allowed multiple bites at the cherry. 

The other banks are right to use the Appeals Panel as a settlement offer which the borrower can reject or accept in full and final settlement. 

BoI's behaviour is a bit strange, but then again they have limited what the panel can award.

Brendan


----------



## TomTron (10 Aug 2020)

I understand that the Ombudsman considers the Appeal Decision to be the equivalent to a 'Final Response' from a bank when a complaint is made.

The Ombudsman requires a 'Final Response' or equivalent before they will take on the case.

Bank of Ireland Terms of Reference for the Appeal Panel does state that compensation levels have 'no limit'. I believe AIB have limited it to 300kEUR, but have no direct reference for that.


----------



## Banquo (10 Aug 2020)

Thanks for researching further.

What's your estimate of costs if going down the High Court route?





Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Banquo
> 
> We are correct in our understanding.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brendan Burgess (11 Aug 2020)

TomTron said:


> Bank of Ireland Terms of Reference for the Appeal Panel does state that compensation levels have 'no limit'. I believe AIB have limited it to 300kEUR, but have no direct reference for that.



My understanding is the very opposite of yours.

AIB's limit is €300k. Anything over that must be approved by the AIB board.

BoI has a table of limits e.g. €5,000 in additional compensation if there were no arrears.  €10,000 if the borrower was in arrears and €20k if there was court action. 

Brendan


----------



## TomTron (11 Aug 2020)

Bank of Ireland Terms of Reference here

Relevant text is on page 6, (emphasis is my own):
"While there is *no upper limit on the level of compensation which can be awarded*, any additional payments by the Panels may vary, depending
on what category the relevant issue falls under and on the specific circumstances of the mortgage account. The Appeals Panels must refer to the Steering Committee Group for decision on any payments greater than the amounts set out in the table on page 13."


----------



## Brendan Burgess (11 Aug 2020)

There is no upper limit on the level of additional compensation which  
can be awarded, but the Appeals Panels must refer to the Steering
Committee Group for decision on any payments greater than the 
amounts set out below. 






Hi Tom

Thanks for that link. This is the table I was speaking about.

So the Appeals Panel has a limit of €5,000 on ordinary non-arrears cases. 

Incidentally, that was the amount awarded by the Appeals Panel in the Ombudsman Case where the Ombudsman increased the award to €22k.

Brendan


----------



## Banquo (11 Aug 2020)

I thought the appeals panel was independent of the bank ( paid for by the bank but decision making is independent) if so how come the panel have to get approval from a steering committee? Who is on the steering committee, does it say?

Separately I would have thought the CBI would insist on uniformity of approach amongst the lenders. If some lenders allow further recourse to the FSPO after the appeal and others don't ? It's not not a level playing field.


----------



## Padjo2007 (11 Aug 2020)

Am I right in saying that if you were never in arrears you'll get €5000 compensation in addition to the interest owed on the write down amount? Sorry if I've picked this up wrong. There are a lot of threads to go through.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (11 Aug 2020)

Padjo

This has nothing to do with AIB.  This is Bank of Ireland. 

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (11 Aug 2020)

Banquo said:


> if so how come the panel have to get approval from a steering committee? Who is on the steering committee, does it say?



I was surprised to hear that yesterday. They certainly are not independent. 

Brendan


----------



## TomTron (11 Aug 2020)

I have been told that none of the Appeal Panels are acting in an independent manner but have no proof of this. In my case, the Panel permitted the Bank to rewrite historic credit decisions when they were provided with proofs and evidences to the contrary. Quite extra-ordinary.

It cannot be the case that BoI are an exception in not requiring full and final settlement agreement if you accept the Appeal Decision. I am not a lawyer, but if you accept the monies in full and final, that is your agreement to make. Or not.


----------



## Padjo2007 (11 Aug 2020)

Brendan Burgess said:


> This is Bank of Ireland.


Apologies Brendan. I missed that part.


----------



## Banquo (12 Aug 2020)

TomTron said:


> I have been told that none of the Appeal Panels are acting in an independent manner but have no proof of this. In my case, the Panel permitted the Bank to rewrite historic credit decisions when they were provided with proofs and evidences to the contrary. Quite extra-ordinary.
> 
> It cannot be the case that BoI are an exception in not requiring full and final settlement agreement if you accept the Appeal Decision. I am not a lawyer, but if you accept the monies in full and final, that is your agreement to make. Or not.


My case is with  Ulster Bank and it's my understanding that if I accept their additional compensation offer then I have no subsequent recourse to the courts.


----------



## Banquo (12 Aug 2020)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I was surprised to hear that yesterday. They certainly are not independent.
> 
> Brendan


Brendan as an aside you might update your post in Jim Stafford's "key post" as you state they are independent in it.


----------



## TomTron (13 Aug 2020)

Banquo said:


> My case is with  Ulster Bank and it's my understanding that if I accept their additional compensation offer then I have no subsequent recourse to the courts.



You might benefit from writing to the Ombudsman for clarification, or making contact with free legal aid (FLAC) session in your area.


----------



## TomTron (13 Aug 2020)

Brendan Burgess said:


> *Complaints upheld *
> 
> It appears that, so far, the Ombudsman has upheld only one systemic issue - the AIB Prevailing Rate issue. I don't think he has rejected any other systemic issues yet but it's hard to know.
> 
> Decision Reference 2019-0045  Failure to offer appropriate compensation or redress,



“The Complainants submit that had the building work on the property been completed sooner, they would have been in a position to rent out rooms to contribute towards their mortgage loan repayments. The Complainants submit that they lost approximately €800 per month, over a two year period on rental income, amounting to €19,200.”

Very interesting, opinion I received from an SC was rent a room income losses were likely unrecoverable in Court, even when there was a history of tenants. Here the complainants were awarded losses based on what they would have done.

Is it correct that Ombudsman rulings are legally binding / relevant to the Court?


----------

