# Courts award compensation to PTSB customers



## Luternau (25 Jul 2016)

Finally, compensation awarded to PTSB customers that lost trackers. Most though lost much more than a tracker!

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...s-win-compensation-of-up-to-25k-34911102.html

Seems a pittance to get so little of loosing the tracker resulted in bankruptcy. Can't help thinking its a good deal for PTSB too.

Hopefully the beginning of real re-dress for others.


----------



## mister32 (25 Jul 2016)

If I understand this correctly, PTSB is also the creditor. See journal.ie

So what it means is PTSB caused them to go bankrupt and now gets away with giving them a few grand.

And PTSB  get 30% back of what they pay out in most cases!


----------



## notabene (26 Jul 2016)

That is an absolute disgrace, particularly if they lost their house & credit rating was destroyed.


----------



## newirishman (26 Jul 2016)

Nobody went bankrupt _just because_ he didn't keep/get a tracker rate on a PPR mortgage.


----------



## notabene (26 Jul 2016)

newirishman said:


> Nobody went bankrupt _just because_ he didn't keep/get a tracker rate on a PPR mortgage.



How do you know? The cost of my own is approx €450 per month how do you know that wasn't the difference between bankruptcy and not? How do you know they didn't decide that that was the easier option than the bank continually hounding them? Have a little respect before you make such grandiose statements.


----------



## newirishman (26 Jul 2016)

notabene said:


> How do you know? The cost of my own is approx €450 per month how do you know that wasn't the difference between bankruptcy and not? How do you know they didn't decide that that was the easier option than the bank continually hounding them? Have a little respect before you make such grandiose statements.



If you have followed the reports of court proceedings esp. PPR repossessions especially here on this forum it should be clear that it is highly unlikely that someone will lose their home - never mind forced into bankruptcy - if a significant portion of interest + principal is being paid off _especially if it is the PPR_.
Which, in a case of say 1% vs 4.5% interest rate, would very much be the case. You are I am sure aware of options like warehousing, interest only periods, etc, and the very special protection of the "home" in Irish courts and society.
We have no information about the overall financial situation of the people that went into bankruptcy. Neither the independent article nor thejournal.ie elaborates on the details (which is no surprise) so I am making an educated guess here.

Just in terms of your assessment of respect: really? 

I have greatest respect for people who go down the bankruptcy route, it usually means they face up to reality and want to get things sorted and themselves out of a financial mess. Especially with the short'ish time frames (1-3 years) it is often the better, and cheaper, solution. Do not forget that creditors lose most in those cases, so it is usually the last resort.


----------



## Luternau (26 Jul 2016)

newirishman said:


> Nobody went bankrupt _just because_ he didn't keep/get a tracker rate on a PPR mortgage.



I am not one for making sweeping generalisations so there is no way you can know enough about any of these cases to state that.

I am sure you read the article and will have noticed the following :

"In each of the cases PTSB was the primary creditor..."

If it was not the actions of PTSB that led to the bankruptcy of each person/case, who else could it have been? A credit union or perhaps credit card debt or outstanding car finance?

The case also includes BTL and PPR trackers. Some holders of BTL loans were forced into or chose bankruptcy. The issue here is that maybe the loss of tracker triggered a bankruptcy that otherwise would not have happened.


----------



## Masque (26 Jul 2016)

Yes, I agree with newirishman, the fact that these borrowers were declared bankrupt has not helped their plight. By the letter of the law, these bankrupts are not legally entitled to any compensation whatsoever. Outstanding creditors get first bite at any compensation awards to bankrupts within the bankruptcy period. However given the fact that PTSB are most likely their largest creditor respectively and has agreed the said outcome is, dare I say it, probably the fairest outcome in this particular situation that the bankrupts could have expected.

Now, if it could be proven that PTSB actions ( with regard to it's overcharging and unlawfully changing borrowers off tracker mortgages ) were a direct cause of the said bankruptcies , then I agree with the other posters that the said offers are derisory. If this cause / effect could have been proven to the High Court, then significant damages would have been awarded, obviously this was not the case.

We will have to await Mr Kissane's High Court case to see what the courts will award in instances were borrowers' PPR's or BTL's have been repossessed as a result of the actions of PTSB. I would have thought PTSB would settle these case types due to the legal costs alone, as the bank has already admitted liability; all that is left to agree is a fair settlement offer: 25,000 euro compensation for loss of BTL properties and 50,000 euro compensation for loss of PPR properties is certainly not that. Senior and junior counsel in this Country do not come cheap, no matter what happens, PTSB will have to pay Mr Kissane's legal teams' costs. PTSB is owned by the State, so guess what, the taxpayer pays yet again. Someone in some Government Department has got to take a look at this situation!


----------



## newirishman (26 Jul 2016)

Well, it looks like one of the individuals who was forced into bankruptcy is suing / planning to sue the PTSB arguing that the overcharging caused the bankruptcy. 

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...may-sue-ptsb-after-loss-of-home-34798668.html

We'll soon know.


----------



## Masque (26 Jul 2016)

Newirishman,

This individual will have to prove that the bankruptcy was a direct result of the actions of PTSB ( with respect to their skullduggery regarding tracker mortgages ). If he / she is successful, then I see a substantial court award in the offing. 
If he lost a BTL property he can claim a plethora of damages, with future loss of profits being assessed by loss of opportunity.

If the borrower is only taking action now, we will have to wait another couple of years before we get to plenary hearing!


----------



## Sarenco (26 Jul 2016)

I would have thought the more proximate cause of the bankruptcy in that case was the fact that the borrower unfortunately lost his job.

_"The outstanding mortgage at the time of the bankruptcy was some €326,000 with €75,000 arrears, Mr Wallace's counsel told the court.

However, counsel said the actual amount, had there not been an overcharge, was around €284,000 with €52,000 arrears."_

So the overcharge certainly made a bad situation worse but that alone was hardly the cause of the bankruptcy.


----------



## Sarenco (26 Jul 2016)

Masque said:


> ...no matter what happens, PTSB will have to pay Mr Kissane's legal teams' costs.



Eh, no.  If Mr Kissane's clients do not succeed with their claims then they may well be liable for the bank's costs (in addition to their own) - it's a two way street.


----------



## Masque (26 Jul 2016)

Sarenco,

From reading the above article, Justice Costello somehow thought differently, although I do have some sympathy for your submission. This would be an argument that the bank's legal counsel may well have to argue in another Court at another time. However what I will say is that there may well be more than one proximate cause that can be deemed by a court to have contributed to a bankruptcy and that is all a plaintiff may need.

In relation to the costs issue, the bank has admitted liability with regard to the overcharging and tracker issues. It is the borrower right to get a court determination of what that liability ( damages ) actually are, in monetary terms. I appears to me that the plaintiff in this case will have the high ground.


----------



## Sarenco (26 Jul 2016)

Masque said:


> From reading the above article, Justice Costello somehow thought differently



How so?  Justice Costello simply discharged him from bankruptcy.



Masque said:


> In relation to the costs issue, the bank has admitted liability with regard to the overcharging and tracker issues. It is the borrower right to get a court determination of what that liability ( damages ) actually are, in monetary terms. I appears to me that the plaintiff in this case will have the high ground.



High ground or not - if they don't win their cases they may be held liable for the bank's costs.  The bank certainly won't be liable for the plaintiffs' costs "no matter what happens".


----------



## newirishman (26 Jul 2016)

Sarenco said:


> I would have thought the more proximate cause of the bankruptcy in that case was the fact that the borrower unfortunately lost his job.
> 
> _"The outstanding mortgage at the time of the bankruptcy was some €326,000 with €75,000 arrears, Mr Wallace's counsel told the court.
> 
> ...



That's exactly my point.


----------



## Masque (26 Jul 2016)

Sarenco,

The article read that Mr Wallace satisfied the court that he may not have needed to go bankrupt.

How will they not win their case if PTSB have already admitted liability ? The fact is every citizen has a right to claim damages through our courts system if they have a cause of action. The bank has admitted liability in relation to this particular cause of action!


----------



## Sarenco (26 Jul 2016)

Masque said:


> Mr Wallace satisfied the court that he may not have needed to go bankrupt.



How could you possibly know that?

The article simply said the judge formally discharged him from bankruptcy - it says nothing at all about whether or not the judge was satisfied (or even considered) whether or not the borrower "needed" to seek bankruptcy protection.



Masque said:


> How will they not win their case if PTSB have already admitted liability ?



Again, how could you possibly know the plaintiffs' case?  And why do you think PTSB have "admitted liability"?  Liability for what?  And how do you admit lability for claims that have yet to be made?

All we know so far is that PTSB (quite rightly in my opinion) dropped their appeal against the High Court  ruling that upheld an FSO decision in a sample of related cases and then established a redress scheme. 



Masque said:


> The fact is every citizen has a right to claim damages through our courts system if they have a cause of action.



Obviously.  Nobody has suggested otherwise.



Masque said:


> The bank has admitted liability in relation to this particular cause of action!



No they haven't.

Look, I have long argued on here that PTSB's position regarding the relevant contract wording was untenable and I urged readers (against the advice of others) to seek legal representation to pursue a claim for damages for breach of contract before any claims became statute barred.  I have no doubt that such actions will ultimately yield better compensation awards than that offered by PTSB thus far.

However, this course of action is not entirely without risk and it is dangerous to suggest otherwise.


----------



## Masque (26 Jul 2016)

Sarenco,

Read newirishmans link in post #9


----------



## Sarenco (26 Jul 2016)

Yes, I've read the article and it simply reports on the result of a hearing to discharge a bankrupt with some commentary/spin from a solicitor about a possible future claim.

Are you still maintaining that PTSB will be responsible for Mr Kissane's legal teams' costs "whatever happens"?


----------



## Masque (26 Jul 2016)

Sarenco,

What I am saying is that PTSB was forced by the Central Bank of Ireland into a grovelling public apology ( don't smile look serious ( note to self, Jeremy Masding CEO PTSB )) because the bank was found by the CBI to have taken people off tracker rates in breach of the borrowers contracts. ( PTSB likely appealing the High court decision, upholding of the FSO decision solely as to exclude other borrowers similar recourse due to statute of limitations, shows a certain contempt I think.)

What we do know is that certain borrowers had their houses wrongly repossessed.

What we do know is that PTSB decided, in their wisdom, to offer borrowers who lost their PPR 50,000 euro and for investors who lost a BTL property 25,000 euro.

What we do know is that the director of enforcement at the CBI, Dervil Rowland, told affected borrowers to use the compensation money offered by PTSB to seek legal advice.

What I do know is that this compensation is derisory and insulting to the said borrowers affected.

Sarenco, would you accept the bank's compensation offer if you were so affected?

What I can say is that from my knowledge of the courts, is that if a borrower so affected as above ( loss of property ) seeks damages in the High Court regarding PTSB's actions, the likely court award will be significantly higher than the compensation currently on offer from the bank.


----------



## Sarenco (26 Jul 2016)

I have been crystal clear in my advice to any PTSB borrower that has been impacted by this issue, both on this thread and elsewhere.

Now, for the third time, are you still maintaining that PTSB will be liable for the plaintiff's costs "no matter what happens"?

I'm not terribly interested in your "knowledge of the courts" but I do have an issue with misleading posts.


----------



## Masque (26 Jul 2016)

Good for you.

For the second time, the plaintiffs in these types of actions will have the higher ground, the bank has offered compensation, for what, if PTSB has done nothing wrong ? I cannot see why a borrower so affected ( loss of property due to the actions of PTSB ) would lose such a legal action or am I missing something simple that you would like to share with the readers of this thread ? If so, I wait this revelation with baited breath !

My suggestion might be for you to visit the courts more often, so as to get some more knowledge yourself. As for your suggestion that my posts are somehow  misleading, I am at a loss to what you are talking about. I am simply stating that if a borrower,  who has lost a property due to the actions of PTSB, were to seek damages through the courts, his / her likely award would be greater than that currently being offered as compensation by PTSB. There is nothing misleading about this though maybe the concept of open discussion and challenges to your personal viewpoint might be alien to you.


----------



## Sarenco (27 Jul 2016)

I didn't ask for your opinion as to the likelihood of success of the plaintiffs' claims for the simple reason that you don't appear to have any particular insight into the plaintiffs' claims and, quite frankly, I don't have any interest in your opinions in this regard.

I did, however, ask you on three separate occasions whether you were still maintaining that PTSB would be liable for the plaintiffs' costs "no matter what happens". 

You are obviously not prepared to answer that simple question.  Your comment on this point was grossly misleading and the fact that you are at a loss as to why this is the case speaks volumes.

Similarly, I am not in the least bit interested in your suggestions as to what I should do with my time.


----------



## Masque (27 Jul 2016)

You appear to be going off thread and attacking the poster not the post.

The answer to your question with respect to borrowers who have lost a property due to PTSB's actions is " YES " PTSB will have to pay the plaintiffs legal costs in an action regarding same  " no matter what happens " This is my belief. Last time I looked I thought this was a consumer forum, not Sarenco's forum, were you ram your own personal opinions down posters throats. Please provide me with even  one example, other than within a settlement agreement, were a defendant would not be liable to pay a plaintiff's legal costs regarding an action for a breach of contract were the defendant has already offered compensation in a redress scheme due to the said breach.

Also, for a second time Sarenco, would you accept the compensation amounts set by PTSB if you had lost property in this type of scenario ?


----------



## Sarenco (27 Jul 2016)

Masque said:


> Please provide me with even  one example, other than within a settlement agreement, were a defendant would not be liable to pay a plaintiff's legal costs regarding an action for a breach of contract were the defendant





Sarenco said:


> If Mr Kissane's clients do not succeed with their claims then they may well be liable for the bank's costs (in addition to their own) - it's a two way street.



That is not an opinion or a belief - it's simply the way our system works and to suggest otherwise is misleading.



Masque said:


> Also, for a second time Sarenco, would you accept the compensation amounts set by PTSB if you had lost property in this type of scenario ?





Sarenco said:


> Look, I have long argued on here that PTSB's position regarding the relevant contract wording was untenable and I urged readers (against the advice of others) to seek legal representation to pursue a claim for damages for breach of contract before any claims became statute barred. I have no doubt that such actions will ultimately yield better compensation awards than that offered by PTSB thus far.
> 
> However, this course of action is not entirely without risk and it is dangerous to suggest otherwise.



Hopefully that's clear.


----------



## Wardy7 (27 Jul 2016)

I am engaged with Padraic Kissane and will possibly be heading to the High Court.  I have been advised of the possibility of losing the case and having to pay PTSB's costs.


----------



## Masque (27 Jul 2016)

Hi Wardy 7,

I believe that Mr Kissane may be taking a legal challenge on the interest rate margin issue which is a separate and additional issue to those that lost their PPR and BTL properties due to the overcharging of PTSB.


----------



## Wardy7 (27 Jul 2016)

I would have thought that the principal was the same though?

Liability admitted.....compensation paid?

I don't claim to have any legal knowledge.  My comment was purely to show that we have been advised of the possibility of a loss.


----------



## Joeber (3 Aug 2016)

The money being awarded to the bankrupts in this case is actually the original compensation offered in the redress scheme. These people were not able to accept the original compensation offers by PTSB. Because they were bankrupt the official assignee had the legal right to take 100% of the redress compensation to pay back creditors. The article makes out that the judge awarded the compensation but that's not the case.


----------

