# Questions for the Central Bank at Finance Committee



## SaySomething (14 Oct 2017)

As before, I've compiled a non-exhaustive list of questions for the Committee to pose to the Central Bank. 

If you have some to add, please do comment below. Or if you want to copy/paste/mail go right ahead. Bear in mind that the Central Bank will not answer questions on individual customer complaints so it's important to keep it general or make a customer complaint specific to a generalised query. 

Finance Committee Email: fincom@oireachtas.ie 

How many banks have submitted their full and final reports on Phase 2 of the Examination to date?

Can the Central Bank verify, on the record, which banks have complied in full and which have not? If the Central Bank cannot confirm this information, why are they withholding this information from the public domain?

The Central Bank moved the Phase 2 deadline from September 2016 to September 2017. Is there a reason why it deems it acceptable to move the deadlines to accommodate the banks?

At the last hearing before the Finance Committee, The Central Bank stated that they only have power to direct the banks to redress affected customers post 2013. Why did this only come to light recently and how can the Oireachtas put controls in place for customers pre 2013?

If it is the case that the Central Bank says they have no powers can the Central Bank please clarify why they state _'The Statute of Limitations does not apply to the Central Bank’s powers to enforce compliance with regulatory requirements including those relevant to this Examination and does not negate lenders’ obligations to comply with the relevant regulatory requirements set out by the Central Bank._ In their guidance document issued to banks in May 2016.

The Central Bank advises that Phase 3 & 4 can progress while Phase 2 is ongoing, why are so many lenders being allowed to put customers on hold for redress?

Would it not make more sense to direct immediate redress with compensation etc to follow?

Ulster Bank for example say that the calculations are 'complicated'. The Finance Committee have access to a recorded phone call between Ulster Bank and an affected customer in January 2017 verifying their figures but asking them to hold for redress for a further 6 months. It is now October. The customer has still not had redress. 

The Central Bank advises banks to 'stop any further harm' to affected customers and to return them to their tracker rate as soon as they are identified. How come KBC in particular, but others, have identified customers and not contacted them yet? 

If the banks are to stop any further harm, why are customers who accrued arrears on their mortgages due to being on the wrong interest rate are being expected to continue to pay for the capital and interest on those arrears pending redress? For over 10 months now and counting. That is further financial hardship for the affected families.

Why is redress taking so long for all banks? 

Can the Central Bank please clarify how it expects the banks to treat 'switcher' affected customers? Will their original lenders be expected to take them back onto their books under a tracker agreement? If not will they be compensated for the interest difference on their loans from the moment at which they switched?

What is the Central Bank's position on the manufactured high tracker rate that Permanent TSB customers (and others) have been placed on? If they do not have a position yet, why not? The lack of clarity around this rate has been going on for far too long and putting customers under further stress and financial pressure.

How many families lost their homes as a result of being on the wrong tracker rate? What is the Central Bank's position on their family home situation. Do they not think it is only proper and fair that they have a home reinstated to them?

How many affected customers died from suicide between 2009-2017?

How can an independent appeals committee be independent when it has at least one staff member on the panel?

Why is it that some banks are withholding the names and qualifications of panel members from affected customers? 

Has the Central Bank identified all cohorts affected and if so, can they publish a list? If the cohorts have not all been identified, can the Central Bank publish a list of cohorts identified within each bank to date as a matter of urgency?

Why is the standard of communication between the banks and their affected customers so poor? What about the useless helplines and letters that say nothing.

Why is it taking so long to get action on the Examination? The Central Bank has been aware of this issue for many, many years at this stage.

Does the Central Bank have enough staff to assist with the issue? How many staff are working on the project? 

How does the Central Bank propose to improve the speed of the investigation?

Will the audit files be made available to an independent third party?

Can the Oireachtas convene a Commission of Investigation into the Tracker Mortgage Scandal?

Has this matter been referred to the ODCE and the Garda Fraud Bureau. If not, why not?

Who is going to help the mortgage holders here? The Ombudsman has all tracker affected cases on hold. The Central Bank won't investigate individual complaints. Customers are feeling let down by all the agencies who are meant to be there to protect them.

Is the Central Bank's consumer protection unit fit for purpose?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (14 Oct 2017)

Hi SS

A great list. These are very key points.




SaySomething said:


> an the Central Bank please clarify how it expects the banks to treat 'switcher' affected customers? Will their original lenders be expected to take them back onto their books under a tracker agreement? If not will they be compensated for the interest difference on their loans from the moment at which they switched?


The Central Bank guideline is that where someone lost their tracker unfairly, then they should be put back in the position they were in before they lost their tracker.  Do you agree, Governor, that this means that a customer who switched to another lender should be offered a return of their tracker by the original bank?



SaySomething said:


> What is the Central Bank's position on the manufactured high tracker rate that Permanent TSB customers (and others) have been placed on? If they do not have a position yet, why not? The lack of clarity around this rate has been going on for far too long and putting customers under further stress and financial pressure.



All rates are manufactured.  Customers who took out fixed rates mortgages with ptsb who did not break out early were put on ptsb's then prevailing tracker rate e.g. a margin of 3.25%.   I don't think that anyone is arguing that the contract allowed ptsb to specify the rate.

I think it's a good question to ask the CB to set out their position.

I would also ask

In cases where borrowers were entitled to the then prevailing tracker rate and where there was no tracker rate, what are your guidelines for deciding what the prevailing rate should be?
*Some other questions *

When a lender decides that a borrower is not impacted, why don't you tell the lender to write to them immediately informing them of that decision? There are many borrowers who consider themselves impacted who will be bitterly disappointed in mid 2018 when they don't hear from the bank. These people should be able to begin the process of appeal on this issue immediately.
What have you learned from this process? In retrospect, did you make the whole process way too complicated and bureaucratic?  Would it not have been better to identify the clear-cut cases and redress them first? Or the urgent cases e.g. those in deep arrears or in the legal process? Then move on to the more complicated and less urgent cases? The way you have done it means that nearly everyone has had to wait years to be sorted.


----------



## moneymakeover (14 Oct 2017)

What about Aib customer who fixed in 2006
(Old conditions)
Why are they not yet deemed impacted?

What about BOI customer who switched to tracker and then fixed.
Why are they not yet deemed impacted?

How many ombudsman decisions have been reversed since central bank investigation?


----------



## Tedtalk (14 Oct 2017)

A questions I'd like asked

What about customers who started on fixed in 2005/2006 for 4 yrs with option of tracker only to find it was gone in 2009/2010 and were forced to take SVR

(SVR was never actually chosen) 

Thanks say something


----------



## Stitcher (15 Oct 2017)

What about a question like: 

How can banks just change the meaning of what a tracker mortgage is without the Financial Regulater advertising it to all customers on the TV.  "You thought you knew what a tracker mortgage was, but from  today, Tracker mortgages are no longer for the life of the mortgage"


----------



## Brendan Burgess (15 Oct 2017)

Where a lender made removal of the tracker a condition of restructuring a mortgage, will you be directing the lender to give the borrower back the tracker? 

Brendan


----------



## moneymakeover (15 Oct 2017)

Not sure what case you are referring to here?

Is there an example?

Are you referring to those ptsb cases where the lender rewrote the conditions in the small print when the fixed period ended?

Sent out to customers (when the fixed period was due to end) even though the default was to simply return to tracker.

In other words trying to trick the customer.


----------



## Mauritius (15 Oct 2017)

Referring to cases where customers asked for a further period of Interest Only, for example a 12 month extension, and the bank only granted it on the condition they give up their tracker rate and sign over to SVR. This happened to me in January 2009.


----------



## SaySomething (18 Oct 2017)

I've asked the committee to clarify the payments made to customers via the Central Bank and all banks. If they could split out the costs of the examination by:

Redress/reinstatement
Compensation, time value of money, and financial advice payments
Staff
Reason being that people are hearing massive figures being paid over to customers as 'compensation' and it's being reported in the press. However the vast majority of the sums paid over is actually redress, not compensation at all. The compensation figures are a small percentage of the overall sum. For optics I feel it suits the banks to leave them as not split out, but for clarity they should be. It will highlight the overcharging issue in stark contrast to the compensation being paid.


----------



## MrBanks (18 Oct 2017)

I


SaySomething said:


> I've asked the committee to clarify the payments made to customers via the Central Bank and all banks. If they could split out the costs of the examination by:
> 
> Redress/reinstatement
> Compensation, time value of money, and financial advice payments
> ...


I agree. It sounds like we are all rolling in it when the reality is we are still recovering from being overcharged for 8 yrs or so and the majority are still hanging around the postbox every day waiting on the banks getting round to refunding Our Money!


----------



## Lightening (18 Oct 2017)

Fair play to John McGuinness Chair of the Finance Committee on RTE NEWS a short time ago. Hopes that sanctions are applied to the banks by the CB in order to ensure that people are paid before Xmas.

Names KBC in particular as giving little or no information at the committee and treated the committee with the greatest of disrespect. He says the figure is far greater than 13,000 and the CB is simply not doing enough to bring the banks to heel. Padraic Kissanes predicted estimate is 30,000.


----------



## Sligolive (18 Oct 2017)

It would be great if the Central Bank could confirm by what date the two " outstanding banks" ( KBC and BOI?) are required to notify impacted customers per the phase 2 bank reviews.


----------



## SaySomething (18 Oct 2017)

Sligolive said:


> It would be great if the Central Bank could confirm by what date the two " outstanding banks" ( KBC and BOI?) are required to notify impacted customers per the phase 2 bank reviews.


All we know is that they’ve to submit revised plans by month end. Doubt they can commit on that one. I’m guessing if it’s not satisfactory they’ll have to resubmit.


----------

