# Trackers on Prime Time tonight



## Brendan Burgess (24 Nov 2015)

Prime Time will be covering the loss of trackers by customers of ptsb, AIB and BoI tonight.

I will be involved in the studio discussion afterwards.

Brendan


----------



## trojan (24 Nov 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Prime Time will be covering the loss of trackers by customers of ptsb, AIB and BoI tonight.
> 
> I will be involved in the studio discussion afterwards.
> 
> Brendan


Wish you well.


----------



## Gerard123 (24 Nov 2015)

Good luck Brendan.

Why not Ulster Bank Trackers also, and their treatment of First Active customers after they closed First Active. Go for it please!


----------



## Brendan Burgess (24 Nov 2015)

Hi Gerard

They have recorded a 20 minute piece with case studies. I have not seen it yet. They chose the case studies. I can only comment on the principles involved. 

Brendan


----------



## Gordon Gekko (24 Nov 2015)

Breathtaking stuff about this chap Thomas's case...fair play to him


----------



## Sarenco (24 Nov 2015)

Unbelieveable.  Simply shocking.


----------



## AAM_User (24 Nov 2015)

Gripping stuff.  This is going to blow up again.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (24 Nov 2015)

Brendan

Do you watch the piece live and then have to comment on it live?

Very difficult.

Miriam O'Callaghan wasn't great - She doesn't seem to understand the issue.

Well done.


----------



## Sarenco (24 Nov 2015)

I'm completely confused now.

RTE clearly indicated that Thomas Ryan was contractually entitled to revert to a tracker at a specific margin over the ECB rate. 

Did they get it completely wrong?


----------



## roncondon (24 Nov 2015)

His letter of offer had the 1.1 % over ecb.
But his contract had no set rate. Think this is where Rte got mixed up and what Brendan was trying to explain.
He should still get low rate on appeal!


----------



## fuzzy10 (24 Nov 2015)

Shocking & both revealing. Thomas Ryan has contested his case to the high courts & still PTSB treat him with contempt.
I truly hope this primetime will put pressure on the banks & the state.


----------



## MAX01 (24 Nov 2015)

roncondon said:


> His letter of offer had the 1.1 % over ecb.
> But his contract had no set rate. Think this is where Rte got mixed up and what Brendan was trying to explain.
> He should still get low rate on appeal!


Will Central Bank now investigate 1800 BOI staff who lost their Trackers?


----------



## Learner2015 (24 Nov 2015)

Was it just me or was Miriam treating Brendan like he was some evil banker instead of someone who was trying to objectively speak about the issue?


----------



## Sarenco (24 Nov 2015)

I'll have to watch the programme back again but I certainly got the impression from the initial piece that Mr Ryan's case was crystal clear - that he was contractually entitled to revert to a rate of 1.1% over the ECB base rate on expiry of his fixed term - whereas Brendan seemed to suggest that he was actually only entitled to revert to the tracker rate prevailing at the end of his fixed term (whatever that might be).

They are two very different things.

The overall impression I got from the programme was that certain banks were continuing to ignore the terms of their own mortgage contracts, notwithstanding the Central Bank's intervention.  Now I'm not so sure.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (24 Nov 2015)

I watched the recorded piece as it was broadcast - I had not seen it beforehand.

It was simply wrong to say he had a rate specified in his contract. Those who had a rate specified, got them. The 300 or so borrowers who were put on the higher rate had the wording "the tracker rate then prevailing" as discussed at length in this thread 
*PTSB - on expiry of fixed rate, tracker rate not specified*

I tried to explain that and correct the error made in the report, so, of course I came across as "dressing it up"  on behalf of ptsb.  But I don't go on these programmes simply to ignore the facts and abuse banks. 

The AIB case has a rate specified as far as I know, and I understand that the FSO has ruled against them.  I don't know what AIB's defence is, but I suspect it is clutching at straws. 

Brendan


----------



## rodger (24 Nov 2015)

That PTSB case beats all.

So now PTSB is saying that if a customer didn't fix that customer will be on 1.1%

But a customer who did fix then that customer is like rolling a dice to see what rate he gets?

Sounds ridiculous.

There is something called the spirit of the law. When they signed up for a tracker they signed up at 1.1% 

That is the margin. The margin should not vary. 

If course PTSB would prefer it was different but that's what a tracker is by definition. What PTSB is trying to do is have it both ways. A kind of variable tracker that suits them.

Looks like Thomas Ryan has to go to court again.

Hats off to Thomas Ryan. As gentleman deserving of everyone's admiration.


----------



## fuzzy10 (24 Nov 2015)

Learner2015 said:


> Was it just me or was Miriam treating Brendan like he was some evil banker instead of someone who was trying to objectively speak about the issue?



Miriam tried to present Brendan as a spokesman for the bank & herself as the champion of the people!


----------



## Brendan Burgess (24 Nov 2015)

MAX01 said:


> Will Central Bank now investigate 1800 BOI staff who lost their Trackers?



Yes, they are currently investigating this. They swapped out of trackers to a special staff fixed rate which was cheaper. 1,800 professional bankers either did not appreciate the value of trackers or they did not understand that they were going to lose them.

If there is evidence that the Bank of Ireland deliberately encouraged them to give up their trackers, then they should be given back their trackers. 

Brendan


----------



## rodger (24 Nov 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I watched the recorded piece as it was broadcast - I had not seen it beforehand.
> 
> It was simply wrong to say he had a rate specified in his contract. Those who had a rate specified, got them. The 300 or so borrowers who were put on the higher rate had the wording "the tracker rate then prevailing" as discussed at length in this thread
> *PTSB - on expiry of fixed rate, tracker rate not specified*
> ...


Is the Aib customer on ecb +3.97 aware of the fsob ruling?


----------



## postman pat (24 Nov 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Yes, they are currently investigating this. They swapped out of trackers to a special staff fixed rate which was cheaper. 1,800 professional bankers either did not appreciate the value of trackers or they did not understand that they were going to lose them.
> 
> If there is evidence that the Bank of Ireland deliberately encouraged them to give up their trackers, then they should be given back their trackers.
> 
> Brendan


The last line is interesting,If there is evidence?..There seems to be an abundance of evidence on this programme and others that a lot of the banks are guilty of sharp practice at best.


----------



## Sarenco (24 Nov 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I watched the recorded piece as it was broadcast - I had not seen it beforehand.
> 
> It was simply wrong to say he had a rate specified in his contract. Those who had a rate specified, got them. The 300 or so borrowers who were put on the higher rate had the wording "the tracker rate then prevailing" as discussed at length in this thread
> *PTSB - on expiry of fixed rate, tracker rate not specified*
> ...




Thanks for the clarification Brendan.

I've watched the programme again with the aid of a pause button.

The clear inference given was that Mr Ryan was entitled to revert to a tracker at a specified margin above the ECB base rate.  However, the document presented on screen (as an example) doesn't actually say that (although the voice over strongly implied that it did).

So, you were absolutely correct - RTE misrepresented the factual position.  Frankly, I think that's very shoddy journalism and really undermines my faith in the balance of the claims made in the programme - which I found very difficult to follow.

Was the programme suggesting that BOI deliberately changed their systems so that staff members would default onto standard variable rates after their fixed terms expired even though they were contractually entitled to default back to their trackers?  That's shocking if true but I don't really know what to believe at this stage.


----------



## MAX01 (25 Nov 2015)

postman pat said:


> The last line is interesting,If there is evidence?..There seems to be an abundance of evidence on this programme and others that a lot of the banks are guilty of sharp practice at best.





Sarenco said:


> Thanks for the clarification Brendan.
> 
> I've watched the programme again with the aid of a pause button.
> 
> ...


I am one of the 1800 staff affected and the system clearly showed my loans reverting to Trackers at end of my fixed rate in January 2009. When I pointed this out to the bank they claimed that their computer systems took time to adjust to the reality that Trackers were no longer offered!
As I have already mentioned, the Head of Legal Services in FSO found in my favour, ordered BOI to revert my loans to Trackers, then William Prasifka,Ombudsman rescinded the decision and found in favour of Bank of Ireland!! How could the Ombudsman rescind the decision of Tom Finn, Head of Legal Services with FSO? What is the point of bringing a case to FSO when they rule against themselves? My experience is that Joe Soap has no chance whatsoever against the banks. My rate is now 5.6% and the stress I have been put through, like so many other customers, is unbearable.


----------



## AAM_User (25 Nov 2015)

If you have access to the system, I hope you took screenshots etc?  I'd be speaking to a solicitor before the week is out.


----------



## Steven Barrett (25 Nov 2015)

Well done Brendan in staying impartial under pressure from Miriam. 

It makes you realise what a David v Goliath battle this is. The banks hold the cards, you owe the money to them, they have deep pockets and have no problem in dragging you all the way to the Supreme Court. 

The Central Bank claim they are there to protect the consumers. Besides ensuring that regulated bodies tick the appropriate box on forms, they don't seem to be doing much protection. 


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## Brendan Burgess (25 Nov 2015)

Sarenco said:


> That's shocking if true but I don't really know what to believe at this stage.



Hi Sarenco

Let's take the ptsb issue. 

The Central Bank is all over them.  If a contract says something clearly, then ptsb will not be able to just change it as the report suggested.  Borrowers can appeal to the internal Customer Appeals Panel, the Ombudsman and the High Court.  So rest assured that where a contract is clear, ptsb is honouring it. 

The argument is what does a contract mean when it says "You will be put onto the prevailing tracker rate when the fixed period expires". The Ombudsman has ruled on this. This was not a margin guarantee. The High Court has ruled that the ESIS has no legal standing. If a contract naturally expired in June 2010, the borrower was put on a tracker of 3.3%. 

In my view the best chance for Thomas and others is that they should get the prevailing rate when they terminated the fixed rate early as that rate was much lower than when the contract was due to expire. 

As I had planned to say on the programme, and I hope I said it, if it is found that ptsb engaged in underhand behaviour, e.g. if they encouraged people to fix or to break a fixed rate to get them off their trackers, then those customers should be given a tracker of no more than 1% margin.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (25 Nov 2015)

Hi Max

I have seen the papers in a similar case. It obviously wasn't yours as the facts are very different.


1) The FSO - Tom Finn - gave the Bank of Ireland staff member back his tracker
2) BoI appealed to the High Court
3) The Ombudsman's legal advisors looked at the decision and advised the FSO that their decision was bound to be struck down.
4) So they did not oppose the BoI's appeal to the High Court



I looked at the original FSO decision. It was the worst I have seen.  It was completely illogical.  Of course BoI were going to win. I had to read it a few times to see if I was missing anything, and I wasn't. It was very disappointing for the staff member involved, but it was the right thing for the FSO to do given how bad his initial decision was.

The decision was remitted back to Bill Prasifka who found against the staff member. 

On balance, I agreed with his decision at the time. Having said that, the High Court might have found differently. From memory, I advised the borrower to get the union or the other 1,799 staff members to back a High Court challenge. I don't think that they did. 

Since then Padraig Kissane has a BoI memo suggesting a deliberate campaign by BoI to get their staff off trackers.  That changes things.
If the Central Bank agrees that the Bank tried to trick their staff members or any other tracker holder out of trackers, the defence that they signed an MFA (Mortgage Form of Authorisation) no longer stands.

Brendan


----------



## Gerard123 (25 Nov 2015)

Brendan. Well done last night. You really held it together despite provocation from presenter. Important to state factual situation, which you were doing and correct to do so by the way.

Agree with prior post by and large with one comment. If people had an entitlement to prevailing tracker it can't be a ludicrous rate made up with benefit of hindsight several years later. The rate that is taken as the prevailing rate needs to be a rate reflective of the time that the entitlement arose. Appreciate may be a bit of a challenge however should be possible by looking at trends in trackers, trends in variable rate at that time, etc. Definitely requires an independent input as don't trust banks.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (25 Nov 2015)

Gerard123 said:


> Brendan. Well done last night. You really held it together despite provocation from presenter. Important to state factual situation.



Thanks Gerard

I went out there last night to do things - to bat for those who had lost their trackers and to explain the situation. 

Unfortunately, I had to spend most of my limited time correcting the report. I am very happy to criticise the lenders but I am only going to do it based on facts. Not on error.  It was a difficult position to be in.


----------



## L John (25 Nov 2015)

Brendan

If the high margin group succeed in getting the rate applied at the time of the actual break in contract rather than when it was due to expire, that also changes everything in terms of the redress programme. 

My issue with the redress scheme is that it applies the rate refund from the date the fixed rate period was due to expire rather than the de facto ending of that contract with their agreement at an early stage.

If the high margin group succeeds then that sets the precedent for everyone to get increased refunds.

Would you agree?


----------



## Somar (25 Nov 2015)

Well done last night to both Brendan and P Kissane. This issue is never going to go away until banks put all who are entitled to trackers back on them at the correct margin in conjunction with the time the mortgage was drawn down.

Does anyone know how the CB investigation of PTSB mortgage book is progressing and when it will be concluded?

Also PTSB have set up a Mortgage Product Review Group led by a Ger Mitchell. What is that going to accomplish??


----------



## HelpingHand (25 Nov 2015)

Somar said:


> Well done last night to both Brendan and P Kissane. This issue is never going to go away until banks put all who are entitled to trackers back on them at the correct margin in conjunction with the time the mortgage was drawn down.
> 
> Does anyone know how the CB investigation of PTSB mortgage book is progressing and when it will be concluded?
> 
> Also PTSB have set up a Mortgage Product Review Group led by a Ger Mitchell. What is that going to accomplish??



I thought Padraic Kissane has been very articulate on every programme, both tv and radio to date.


----------



## Sarenco (25 Nov 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Sarenco
> 
> Let's take the ptsb issue.
> 
> ...



Thanks Brendan.

It's a real pity that RTE tried to "sex up" the story.  There is definitely a real issue here but misrepresenting the factual position is in nobody's interest.

I suspect MO'C was pretty annoyed at the team that put together the package - she was made look pretty foolish in your subsequent discussion.

I absolutely agree that PTSB borrowers in these circumstances should be entitled to the prevailing tracker rate at the time that they broke out of their fixed term and not the prevailing tracker rate when the term would otherwise have expired. The fixed rate term expired when the borrower (quite legitimately) broke the term and I struggle to see how PTSB (or any other lender) could legitimately argue otherwise.

However, I suppose the difficulty arises where a fixed term was broken after Q3 2008, when there was no prevailing tracker rate.  In those circumstances, I would have thought the prevailing tracker margin immediately prior to the withdrawal of the product in Q3 2008 would be appropriate.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (25 Nov 2015)

Sarenco said:


> However, I suppose the difficulty arises where a fixed term was broken after Q3 2008, when there was no prevailing tracker rate. In those circumstances, I would have thought the prevailing tracker margin immediately prior to the withdrawal of the product in Q3 2008 would be appropriate.



Hi Sarenco

PTSB did have a prevailing tracker rate.  Many fixed rate periods expired on schedule and they were put onto rates at the time.  ptsb made up those rates at the time. The people who are getting their trackers back three years later are getting the rate that those who expired naturally got. 

Brendan


----------



## Sarenco (25 Nov 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> PTSB did have a prevailing tracker rate.  Many fixed rate periods expired on schedule and they were put onto rates at the time.  ptsb made up those rates at the time. The people who are getting their trackers back three years later are getting the rate that those who expired naturally got.



Ah, I see - thanks.

Has PTSB given any explanation for adopting this position?  I really don't see how they could validly argue that the fixed term didn't expire when the borrower broke the fixed term and it is the prevailing tracker rate at this point in time that's relevant. 

As a matter of interest, did the "prevailing" tracker margin vary materially after Q3 2008?  In other words, was the rate materially different in, say, Q4 2008 and Q4 2010?

Also, I would have thought that the Central Bank would have effectively signed-off on all this before the redress scheme was announced- no?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (25 Nov 2015)

Hi Sarenco

They are set out here 
* PTSB - on expiry of fixed rate, tracker rate not specified*





Sarenco said:


> There is definitely a real issue here but misrepresenting the factual position is in nobody's interest.



I couldn't agree more.  The annoying thing for me was that I wanted to discuss this issue last night. But instead I had to deal with the allegation that people had rates in their contracts and ptsb was not honouring them.


----------



## Onceagain (25 Nov 2015)

I am also one of the 1800 Boi Staff, my complaint is still with the FSOB. So Brendan do myself an MAXO1 have to find the remaining 1788 staff in order for justice to prevail?


----------



## Sarenco (25 Nov 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Sarenco
> 
> They are set out here
> * PTSB - on expiry of fixed rate, tracker rate not specified*
> ...



Hi Brendan

Thanks for that.

I would still be firmly of the opinion that borrowers are contractually entitled to whatever the prevailing tracker margin was at the time that they broke out of their fixed term.  However, the schedule in the first post of that thread would seem to suggest that the margin applied by PTSB post-October 2008 was fairly random so that may be easier said then done from an administrative perspective.  

Not the borrowers' problem, obviously, but it might explain why PTSB are adopting a position on this issue that appears to be completely untenable on the face of it.

I can certainly see why you were annoyed at being put in a position of having to defend PTSB.  You are certainly to be commended for insisting on sticking with the facts.

It's a shame because once upon a time Prime Time did some really excellent investigative journalism.  These days I find myself constantly doubting what I'm being told - the tone and content of the programme has become too sensationalist.   In my opinion, there have just been too many exaggerations, half-truths and misrepresentations in recent years for the programme to be entirely trustworthy.

I guess ratings are more important than accuracy.


----------



## Sarenco (25 Nov 2015)

Onceagain said:


> I am also one of the 1800 Boi Staff, my complaint is still with the FSOB. So Brendan do myself an MAXO1 have to find the remaining 1788 staff in order for justice to prevail?



I really don't want to antagonise anybody but I find the whole issue relating to the 1,800 BOI staff members very confusing.

Padraig Kissane stated very clearly on the programme that the 1,800 staff members fell into the same category as and should be treated in exactly the same way as the 2,096 borrowers that were compensated in December 2011.  However, there was no explanation offered on the programme as to why this should be the case.

Did the BOI staff members have the same contractual right to revert to a tracker as the borrowers that were compensated in December 2011?  If they did, then it's absolutely outrageous that BOI is not honouring its contractual commitments but this was not clear from the programme.

On the contrary, the internal BOI memo from October 2008 referenced on the programme suggested that the 1,800 staff members had no contractual entitlement to revert to a tracker because they signed an MFA that superseded the terms of their original loan offer and did not include a right to default back to the original tracker rate.

According to the memo, the fixed rate of 3.95% was offered to staff members in December 2006, which was obviously way before anybody could have possibly anticipated how valuable trackers would become.  In fact, BOI continued to offer trackers as late as September 2008 so it seems completely fanciful to imagine that BOI were far-sighted enough in December 2006 to take steps to trick staff members out of trackers that they would otherwise be entitled to once their fixed terms expired.

I am conscious that Pádraig was very strong on this point so I assume I am missing something that was not explained on the programme.

I would be very grateful if somebody could set me straight.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (25 Nov 2015)

Onceagain said:


> I am also one of the 1800 Boi Staff, my complaint is still with the FSOB. So Brendan do myself an MAXO1 have to find the remaining 1788 staff in order for justice to prevail?



No. If your case is similar to the one I saw... you voluntarily signed an MFA which said that you were moving to a staff variable rate which could be varied at the discretion of the bank. Most people would agree with the Ombudsman that the description of an interest rate which varies at the discretion of the bank and does not mention the ECB is a variable rate. I would expect that most of the bank's staff would have understood that as well. I think it's unlikely that the Ombudsman will change his mind. 

Padraig Kissane does not agree with me or with the Ombudsman. 

The Ombudsman has changed and maybe the new guy will take a different view. 

However, it's such a critical issue that I think the IBOA should be funding a High Court challenge to the issue.  You don't need to find the other 1788 as quite a few of them have gone to Padraig already. 

Let both sides argue their case in the High Court and that would decide the matter. 

And as I have said before - if it can be shown that Bank of Ireland lured people off cheap trackers, then the Central Bank should direct BoI to put them all back on their original tracker rate. 

Brendan


----------



## Onceagain (25 Nov 2015)

Thanks Brendan, it would be nice to put it all to bed one way or the other, it'exhausting. But I won't go down without a fight.

Sarenco- the response by Bank of Ireland to my complaint contradicts itself, in one part it says as you say "had no contractual entitlement to revert to a tracker because I signed an MFA that superseded the terms of their original loan offer and did not include a right to default back to the original tracker rate". However in another part of the letter it says the  terms of the original loan offer remain unchanged. So if the Bank can't give a coherent response to my complaint, it does make one even more doubtful, be it willful or not on bank's behalf.  

I will just have to wait and see what the FSOB says.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (25 Nov 2015)

The MFA I saw said something along the lines of " you will move to the variable rate. Other than this, the terms of the original loan offer remain unchanged"  which is very different. 

Brendan


----------



## Sarenco (25 Nov 2015)

Thanks Onceagain.

To be clear, I'm not trying to run down anybody's argument - I'm just trying to understand why somebody as experienced as Pádraig Kssane is so emphatic on this issue.  

If the argument is based on conflicting wording between different documents, well that's obviously fair enough - but that argument was not advanced or explained on the programme.

I wish you well with your complaint.


----------



## rodger (26 Nov 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Sarenco
> 
> Let's take the ptsb issue.
> 
> ...



A tracker tracks ecb. There is no reason for the margin to change. 
If the margin changes then what's it called? an index linked tracker? Why not arbitrarily adjust other tracker holders???

I find it disturbing this argument by ptsb and their hiking of the margin.  The margin was set day one. It was around 1.1%.

The prevailing tracker rate is ecb + original margin. The variable is ecb rate. When they talk about prevailing it's because they can't know in advance the ecb rate.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Nov 2015)

Hi rodger 

Unfortunately, for some of these borrowers, there was no rate specified in the mortgage contract. So it didn't change. 

They started on a fixed rate and were told at the time, that on expiry of their fixed rate, they would be put on the "tracker rate then prevailing".

Where the contract specified a rate and where the contract was not superseded by a change of contract, they got the rate specified in the contract. 

Brendan


----------



## rodger (26 Nov 2015)

Exactly!


----------



## MrEarl (27 Nov 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> ...Unfortunately, I had to spend most of my limited time correcting the report. I am very happy to criticise the lenders but I am only going to do it based on facts. Not on error.  It was a difficult position to be in.



Well done Mr. Burgess. 

I thought you did well given the difficult position you found yourself in.

I am truely frustrated with the way Prime Time has gone, it seems to be more and more a show about what Miriam feels like saying or how she feels like behaving, rather than getting the facts correct, ensuring that people are not interrupted when making important points and in particular, when they are trying to respond to someting Miriam has said to them etc.


----------

