# Banks trying to systematically change terms and condtions



## PadKiss

Hi all
I feel I must make comment here and it is not to disagree with Brendan's point but to provide some balance. I have uncovered a deliberate and concerted effort by all lenders to _strategically_ alter the terms and conditions that were agreed at the outset of mortgage loans. This was a deliberate and orchestrated effort and I am not saying that 2 wrongs are right but balance please. I can also confirm if we are talking statistics and percentages that of the many that have contacted me I have not met one strategic defaulter, (who may not need me anyway) which if Brendan's and 44 Brendan comments are to go by I should have come across at least some, but none!!!!!. But of the attempts at the strategic alteration of contracts by lenders, 100% of lenders is the figure I would use here. Just my views Padraic


----------



## Bronte

PadKiss said:


> I have uncovered a deliberate and concerted effort by all lenders to _strategically_ alter the terms and conditions that were agreed at the outset of mortgage loans. This was a deliberate and orchestrated effort and I am not saying that 2 wrongs are right but balance please.  ,




This I can not only agree with but prove that it was one of my arguments with Ulster Bank and the ombudsman in relation to my complaint, which I did not win.  I could not prove it, I have no access to the bank managers notes where staff were told to lie( I am referring now to banks in general, not necessarily my bank) nor have I access to the meeting notes where decisions were taken to 'confuse' or 'co serce' or 'cajole' customers.

There is absolutely no doubt, for me, that banks 'deliberately' set out to change terms and conditions, they started this by creating confusion in relation to the words/names/ terms they applied to basic words like Family home.


----------



## Sarenco

PadKiss said:


> Hi all
> I feel I must make comment here and it is not to disagree with Brendan's point but to provide some balance. I have uncovered a deliberate and concerted effort by all lenders to _strategically_ alter the terms and conditions that were agreed at the outset of mortgage loans. This was a deliberate and orchestrated effort and I am not saying that 2 wrongs are right but balance please. I can also confirm if we are talking statistics and percentages that of the many that have contacted me I have not met one strategic defaulter, (who may not need me anyway) which if Brendan's and 44 Brendan comments are to go by I should have come across at least some, but none!!!!!. But of the attempts at the strategic alteration of contracts by lenders, 100% of lenders is the figure I would use here. Just my views Padraic




I don't understand how it is possible to change the terms of a contract without the consent of the other party but do tell..


----------



## advice

Ulster Bank March 2006 changed loan funding from prime to euribor.
Danske bank February 2009, changed home loans to investor loans.


----------



## Piggybank

Bank of Ireland March 2011 re commercial loans - Euribor to bank cost of funds


----------



## Sarenco

advice said:


> Ulster Bank March 2006 changed loan funding from prime to euribor.
> Danske bank February 2009, changed home loans to investor loans.



Were the relevant loan contracts sufficiently flexible to allow for these changes at the discretion of the lenders or are you suggesting that the lenders are breaching the contractual terms in changing the basis upon which interest is calculated?

It would also be helpful if you could provide some links or details to back up these claims.

Thanks.


----------



## 44brendan

What on earth is this all about?? How can you strategically or otherwise alter the terms and conditions of any contract? Why generalize and point to a widespread habit with no specific instances or cases mentioned. Where does the law and the judiciary stand? Are they part of the "Axis of Evil"??


Bronte said:


> This I can not only agree with but prove that it was one of my arguments with Ulster Bank and the ombudsman in relation to my complaint, which I did not win. I could not prove it, I have no access to the bank managers notes where staff were told to lie( I am referring now to banks in general, not necessarily my bank) nor have I access to the meeting notes where decisions were taken to 'confuse' or 'co serce' or 'cajole' customers.



This is a further serious allegation which if it were proven should have resulted in a court case and an award of damages. While bank managers are no different than any other professions in that there can be some bad eggs, they would very rarely instruct staff to lie and get away with it! despite what many would think there is no institutional cover-up taking place in any of our major banks. Staff are not under threat to keep their mouths shut on shady activities. Bad decisions were made in the past and these were not just within banking circles. However, there is no capacity to change a contract and expect that the changes will not have repercussions for those who attempt it.


----------



## twofor1

Is this the article ?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/busine...er-gets-loan-interest-written-off-271087.html

To quote from the article;

‘_’Ms Leonard estimates that overall thousands of Ulster Bank customers could be affected by the court ruling last month’’._

The issue with Danske Bank in 2009 affected thousands of people, but only 3 complaints were made to the FSO that year.

Following the issue being highlighted here, several more made successful complaints in later years, but the vast majority just accepted the changes even though it was costing them thousands of €uros annually, to me that’s ‘’Mind Boggling’’

The banks strongest weapon appears to be their customer’s complacency, and the banks know they can rely on it.

Most cannot afford court proceedings, but the FSO costs nothing, and in my experience is very amenable to the ordinary ‘’Joe Soap’’ making a complaint.

Anyone who has a grievance with Ulster Bank or any other lender should complain and follow through. It is not a difficult process.


----------



## Sarenco

Surely Ulster Bank were found to be in breach of contract in the reported case rather than unilaterally altering the terms and conditions of any contracts?

I certainly agree with twofor1 that anybody with a grievance with any bank should follow through with a complaint to the FSO - that's what it's there for!


----------



## Pinesky

Piggybank said:


> Bank of Ireland March 2011 re commercial loans - Euribor to bank cost of funds


Surely they only did this on rollover or on drawdown of new facilities ? Customers would be free to go elsewhere,
They had no legal right to alter existing facilities and in my experience wouldn't do so .


----------



## twofor1

Pinesky said:


> Surely they only did this on rollover or on drawdown of new facilities ? Customers would be free to go elsewhere,
> They had no legal right to alter existing facilities and in my experience wouldn't do so .



Is this the case Piggybank is referring to? If it is, Mr White has never come back to clarify exactly what his mortgage agreement says.

My *GUESS *is although probably not crystal clear, his agreement allows for this change*.*


http://www.askaboutmoney.com/thread...euribor-to-cost-of-funds.193779/#post-1430205


----------



## Pinesky

twofor1 said:


> Is this the case Piggybank is referring to? If it is, Mr White has never come back to clarify exactly what his mortgage agreement says.
> 
> My *GUESS *is although probably not crystal clear, his agreement allows for this change*.*
> 
> 
> http://www.askaboutmoney.com/thread...euribor-to-cost-of-funds.193779/#post-1430205


Thanks Twofor 1 but I  was just replying to the changes on the commercial loan terms as mentioned by Piggybank. A friend of mine appealed a  case ,similar to the one you quoted, to the FSO and lost . The FSO ruled that the Bank had written to him informing him of the change and he could have gone elsewhere . The contract must have allowed for this and he complicated things by drawing further funds without noticing the relevant changes.
As it was not a mortgage for a PDH he felt the FSO wasn't too bothered.


----------



## advice

Twofor1,

I know the F.S.O has served you well in relation to Danske Bank, but failed the Millars dreadfully. Do not forget there is a corollary to the 36%


----------



## twofor1

advice said:


> Twofor1,
> 
> I know the F.S.O has served you well in relation to Danske Bank, but failed the Millars dreadfully. Do not forget there is a corollary to the 36%



Hi advice,

The FSO has served me well in relation, not only to Danske Bank, but also Aviva, and the VHI, these are the only times I have had dealings with the FSO.

I’m not familiar enough with the Millers case to comment, but I have already clearly acknowledged the FSO appears to have made some inconsistent and questionable decisions, possibly the Millers is one of these, I don’t know.

I’m not sure what you mean by there being a corollary to the 36%, the FSO has always stated there is no precedent in his decisions, each complaint is investigated on its own merit. Am I misunderstanding the meaning of ‘’Corollary’’ ?  Either way 36% is still 36%.   

Regardless of any shortcomings the office of the FSO might have, I’m surprised so many discourage people with a complaint from going to the FSO.

It’s free, no legal managerial or financial expertise is required and many are successful. Why would one not go there ?

 We should be encouraging people to go to the FSO instead of constantly highlighting the negatives, there is absolutely nothing to lose and potentially a lot to gain.


----------



## advice

Twofor1,

It means that 64% of complaints to the F.S.O. were not upheld or not settled to the consumers satisfaction prior to adjudication. However, to give them their due, they do get it right sometimes.


----------



## twofor1

advice said:


> Twofor1,
> 
> It means that 64% of complaints to the F.S.O. were not upheld or not settled to the consumers satisfaction prior to adjudication....



That’s correct, but there are winners and losers in most disputes.

We will never know the answer but if these same cases were to come before the courts, I would guess the majority would not be successful there either.

The majority would then have substantial legal costs.

So why not go to the free FSO.

Getting back on topic, I still eagerly await details from PadKiss re:  _‘’I have uncovered a deliberate and concerted effort by all lenders to strategically alter the terms and conditions that were agreed at the outset of mortgage loans’’_


----------



## Black_Adder

44Brendan - if I were a banker I would regularly have a look here - there are forewarnings of storms and bad weather here that have been accurate.

For example the commentary on the FSO when the former holder of the Office upheld 90% of complaints about Banks in favour of Banks and it went on from there. Having read many of the cases it was clear that the former FSO - quoting Judge Hogan - had got overly bogged down in contract law despite having significant powers to make break through decisions. I note that Padraic Kissane had a 75% upheld ratio. Why was this?

Main weakness was the FSO only looked at what the complainant raised. I can assure you that most complainants were missing references to European Directives. Ireland has a habit of slipping these in by way of Statutory Instrument and leave them buried so that hapless consumers will never dig them out.

Prediction: Six year rule will be examined in the context of continuing conduct and some severe lessons are coming. 
Prediction: At least two Banks are either unaware of their own materials about tracker  mortgages when they have been shooting down reinstatement of trackers. Coming soon I believe.
Prediction: A number of cases will go to Court and senior staff will be named and called as witnesses - they will not lie on the stand.


----------



## twofor1

Harry Whelehan SC, reviewed 31 random cases that the FSO adjudicated on in the calendar years 2013 and 2014. All 31 cases are examined individually in the report, 8 of these relate to mortgages.

To me, it seems the report is very positive on how the FSO investigates and adjudicates on complaints, some of Harry’s General Comments are;

The methodology in investigating complaints and assembling the evidence and in evaluating the submissions of the Complainant and the Respondent is sound, consistent and effective. I have examined the complaints procedure followed by the FSOB and consider it to be adequate and appropriate and in the cases which I have reviewed, those procedures have been followed.

The principles of natural justice appear to be to the forefront and applied in all cases reviewed.

The Findings were of a high standard* in all cases…………………………………………

[broken link removed]


----------



## Black_Adder

twofor1 for the avoidance of doubt - nobody is saying that there was not a lot of effort put into cases by the FSO Office.

However, if you posted this the day after Whelehans review - we might all be sitting up and taking some stock.

Events have completely and utterly over taken this for not even the FSO himself is seeking to defend some of the practices of the past particularly in relation to tracker mortgages. But that does not mean that some in the FSO office actually did get to the bottom of some of the issues and indeed it was the FSO office finding against PTSB - which was then appealed by PTSB to High Court - with the High Court backing FSO and then PTSB taking another appeal to Supreme Court - and it was clear that PTSB were told they would lose - led to the PTSB enforcement action - largely due to the work of Padraic Kissane. The FSO case was good here. No doubts about that.

In fact if you raised the issues with FSO they did indeed follow them though. Hence Padraic Kissane had a 75% success rate. However, punters taking their own case lost 90% of the time.

So what were the differences?

Part of it was simple - if you did not raise a particular issue then the FSO did not examine it. Kissane did as he did his homework. Far from being a consumer friendly approach it was adversarial in nature.

The  then FSO according to Hogan J was following  an overly legalistic approach when in fact the powers at his disposal were much wider. You have to read the brief that Mr Whelehan was given and you have to know the legal basis of the FSO scheme and read some of their determinations.

The conclusion was that a punter had a 10% chance of success.

The Banks knew the weakness faster than anybody else - and with this dreadful Central Bank timeout for Banks (until the end of the year) I have not heard of ONE new reinstatement of tracker for ANY bank since December 22nd 2015 er ..... almost to the hour that the Central Bank set up the extension of the Tracker Review to all Banks.

However if you want to see how bad the conduct of the Banks has been - either you go and see Mr Kissane - you will be in good company for the Central Bank did in relation to PTSB - or else hold your powder dry and wait and see.

Your keen defence of the FSO is worthy but I am afraid you maybe in a minority - and the current FSO is not in that number as will be clearly seen here.

[broken link removed]


----------



## twofor1

Black_Adder said:


> The conclusion was that a punter had a 10% chance of success.



I have previously argued this often quoted 10% is misleading.

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/thread...ine-figure-of-only-10-upheld-suggests.187936/


----------



## Mr Holmes

twofor1 said:


> Harry Whelehan SC, reviewed 31 random cases that the FSO adjudicated on in the calendar years 2013 and 2014. All 31 cases are examined individually in the report, 8 of these relate to mortgages.
> 
> To me, it seems the report is very positive on how the FSO investigates and adjudicates on complaints, some of Harry’s General Comments are;
> 
> The methodology in investigating complaints and assembling the evidence and in evaluating the submissions of the Complainant and the Respondent is sound, consistent and effective. I have examined the complaints procedure followed by the FSOB and consider it to be adequate and appropriate and in the cases which I have reviewed, those procedures have been followed.
> 
> The principles of natural justice appear to be to the forefront and applied in all cases reviewed.
> 
> The Findings were of a high standard* in all cases…………………………………………
> 
> [broken link removed]



These cases were looked at from the view point of an ex attorney general, in other words with regards to contractual obligations of the agreement as oppose to the willow the wisp concept of fairness that cannot be pinned down contractually ( unless the contract term in question is unconscionable ). Having said this I have great respect for Mr Whelehan, a great legal mind.


----------



## Black_Adder

So I assume twofor1 what you are saying is that all is well with the FSO. Even the current FSO is not trying to defend the position.
Did you read the press conference statement?
I have read significant number of their cases - they will not address matter unless you highlight them.
I have read replies from Banks that are plain and simply wrong.
We could shape the figures any way you like - but it was William Prasifka who used the 90% figure.

Our great leader said:

"...The mortgages figures are interesting as well

12% upheld
16% partially upheld
72% rejected

Does partially upheld include the guy who does not get his tracker back but gets €1,000 compensation for maladministration?

Aug 21, 2013 .."

The problem with partially up held is that it is often insignificant - is that not also misleading?


----------



## twofor1

Black_Adder said:


> So I assume twofor1 what you are saying is that all is well with the FSO.



Certainly not, see post #25 in this tread, particularly the last paragraph.


----------



## Sarenco

Hi Padraig

Almost nine months on, I wonder are you in a position at this stage to comment further on your original assertion that:



PadKiss said:


> I have uncovered a deliberate and concerted effort by all lenders to _strategically_ alter the terms and conditions that were agreed at the outset of mortgage loans.



This would obviously be a genuinely shocking discovery if literally true but I've often wondered if you meant something else.


----------



## Sarenco

Has anybody published any evidence that any bank attempted to "strategically alter the terms and conditions that were agreed at the outset of mortgage loans"?  I certainly haven't seen any such evidence.


----------



## Lone Star

Is the Matei case not along these lines? lots of EU and unfair terms being talked about lately. Master of High Court mentioned something recently also on unfair terms ....


----------



## Sarenco

The Matei case had nothing to do with anybody altering the terms of any contract - strategically or otherwise.

I think we will just have to be patient if we want to learn what has been uncovered by the OP in this regard.


----------



## Bronte

Sarenco said:


> Has anybody published any evidence that any bank attempted to "strategically alter the terms and conditions that were agreed at the outset of mortgage loans"?  I certainly haven't seen any such evidence.



So how do you explain the fact that so many customers were denied trackers

How was a procedure put in place to deny them back their trackers

Who made the decision

Where are the minutes of the meeeting where this was discussed

Where is the written instructions from top management to the guys in the banks that deal with the customers

Who wrote out the standard letters denying trackers back

etc etc etc


----------



## Sarenco

Bronte said:


> So how do you explain the fact that so many customers were denied trackers



Bronte

With respect, you are very clearly trying to misrepresent my post.

Many, if not most, of our lenders very obviously breached the terms of their contractual obligations to their customers with regard to the tracker issue.  That is absolutely clear and totally uncontroversial.

That obviously required a decision to be taken by somebody and it seems highly improbable that any such decision would have been taken by anybody outside of the very top tier of management in each relevant institution.  Again, totally uncontroversial.

However, in the opening post Padraic stated as follows:-


PadKiss said:


> I have uncovered a deliberate and concerted effort by all lenders to _strategically_ alter the terms and conditions that were agreed at the outset of mortgage loans.



That seems an extraordinary claim if literally true and I have simply asked Padraic if he is in a position to comment further on this matter.


----------



## Bronte

So Sarenco, a deliberate and concerted effort by all lenders to stragically alter the terms and conditions that were ageed at the outset on tracker mortgages, as evidenced by the thousands of people involved, is what then?

By the way, why do you think it is that nobody has been able to get a copy of the minutes of the meetings or the directions from top management?


----------



## Sarenco

Bronte said:


> So Sarenco, is a deliberate and concerted effort by all lenders to stragically alter the terms and conditions that were ageed at the outset on tracker mortgages, as evidenced by the thousands of people involved, is what then?



Bronte

There is a world of difference between breaching the terms of a contract and altering the terms of that contract without the agreement of the other party.

The former is a civil matter, the latter is a serious crime.

It would be truly shocking if it turned out that there had been a concerted, industry-wide attempt by lenders to alter the terms of previously agreed loan contracts without the agreement of their respective borrowers.  



Bronte said:


> By the way, why do you think it is that nobody has been able to get a copy of the minutes of the meetings or the directions from top management?



No idea.  Why are you directing that question to me?


----------



## Bronte

Sarenco said:


> It would be truly shocking if it turned out that there had been a concerted, industry-wide attempt by lenders to alter the terms of previously agreed loan contracts without the agreement of their respective borrowers.



If your contract says you're entitled to a tracker and you don't get it, what do you call that other than an attempt, which succeeded, by the lenders to alter the terms of a previously agreed loan contract. 

Can you define the difference between breach and alter?

Also I just wondered if you know of such minutes, because I assume you work in that general area, ie finance.  So maybe you might be in teh know.  Someone must know.  And I've been banging on about this for years now.  Which is why about two weeks ago I read an article on it.  In the Examiner I think it was.  I meant to put it up here but forgot.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

PadKiss said:


> I have uncovered a deliberate and concerted effort by all lenders to _strategically_ alter the terms and conditions that were agreed at the outset of mortgage loans





Sarenco said:


> There is a world of difference between breaching the terms of a contract and altering the terms of that contract without the agreement of the other party.



Hi Sarenco 

I can't speak for Padraic, but I would imagine that he means a deliberate attempt to breach the terms and conditions, rather than to alter them.

If you and I agree something. Then I regret the deal and try to insist that it means something else. Am I breaching the terms and conditions or altering them? 

In any event, I am trying to evade my obligations. 

Brendan


----------



## Sarenco

Bronte said:


> Can you define the difference between breach and alter?



Seriously Bronte, they are hardly obscure words!  If you genuinely don't understand the difference could I respectfully suggest that you consult a dictionary.



Bronte said:


> Also I just wondered if you know of such minutes, because I assume you work in that general area, ie finance.  So maybe you might be in teh know.



Nope.


----------



## Bronte

Sarenco said:


> Seriously Bronte, they are hardly obscure words!  If you genuinely don't understand the difference could I respectfully suggest that you consult a dictionary.



I'm asking the difference as regards court.  You brought up the law. 

Honestly don't care if it was breach or alter.  Both are wrong behaviour.  Which is what I along with the tracker holders are interested in.


----------



## Sarenco

Brendan Burgess said:


> I can't speak for Padraic, but I would imagine that he means a deliberate attempt to breach the terms and conditions, rather than to alter them.



You might well be right Brendan, which is why I asked Padraic the following:-



Sarenco said:


> Almost nine months on, I wonder are you in a position at this stage to comment further on your original assertion that ...
> *This would obviously be a genuinely shocking discovery if literally true but I've often wondered if you meant something else*.





Brendan Burgess said:


> If you and I agree something. Then I regret the deal and try to insist that it means something else. Am I breaching the terms and conditions or altering them?



Parties regularly have genuine disputes as to the correct interpretation of contractual provisions and we have mechanisms in place for resolving those disputes.  However, you can't unilaterally revise/alter/change the contract wording because you regret the terms of the bargain.


----------



## Sarenco

Bronte said:


> I'm asking the difference as regards court.



The words are given their ordinary, usual meaning.

I have already explained why the difference is significant - one is a crime.


----------



## Bronte

Sarenco said:


> The words are given their ordinary meaning.



We shall see.  Anyway Revenue swore black was white in relation to one word and the court decided otherwise.  So I'll wait until we see what happens as regards trackers and the Central Bank etc.


----------



## Sarenco

Indeed.

However, if there is prima facie evidence that bank officials have been falsifying loan documents then I would expect the Gardaí/DPP to take an interest.


----------



## Bronte

Sarenco said:


> Indeed.
> 
> However, if there is prima facie evidence that bank officials have been falsifying loan documents then I would expect the Gardaí/DPP to take an interest.



Ok, now I get you.  That wasn't what I was tallking about.  We were at cross purposes.


----------



## PadKiss

For the information of those interested as it seems mis-understood. These are not my definitions or meanings of the words as i did not want to rely on my understanding so as it was mentioned above here are the Oxford definitions

_*Strategically;*_ In a way that relates to the achievement of long-term or overall aims and interests

*Alter;*  Change in character or composition, typically in a comparatively small but significant way

Is that clear enough but if not i am reminded of Bruce Lee's comment 

_A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer. _


----------



## Sarenco

Thanks Padraic.

So, for the avoidance of any further confusion, you have not uncovered any effort by lenders to change the composition of any previously agreed loan contracts.  Right?

That really would have been a huge twist in the tracker scandal.


----------



## EdtheHead

Surely the facts speak for themselves, name a bank in Ireland that did not overcharge it's customers by incorrectly "interpreting" it's contractual obligations. l know one swallow does not make a summer, but you would have to be a fool to think the similar actions of each and every bank was all some giant coincidence.


----------



## IdesofMarch

PadKiss said:


> Hi all
> I feel I must make comment here and it is not to disagree with Brendan's point but to provide some balance. I have uncovered a deliberate and concerted effort by all lenders to _strategically_ alter the terms and conditions that were agreed at the outset of mortgage loans. This was a deliberate and orchestrated effort and I am not saying that 2 wrongs are right but balance please. I can also confirm if we are talking statistics and percentages that of the many that have contacted me I have not met one strategic defaulter, (who may not need me anyway) which if Brendan's and 44 Brendan comments are to go by I should have come across at least some, but none!!!!!. But of the attempts at the strategic alteration of contracts by lenders, 100% of lenders is the figure I would use here. Just my views Padraic



Padkiss,

Not only are the Banks strategically altering the terms and conditions of mortgage agreements, they are now simply removing a product default option that was originally included in the mortgage contract (Tracker Mortgages). For example, AIB  expect people to be grateful for a 1000 Euro payoff, no questions asked!


----------

