AIB Appeals Panel disagrees with the Ombudsman's decision

Here is a recent decision from the AIB Appeals Panel to a case which was on hold pending AIB's response to the Ombudsman's decision in Karen's case - my emphasis in bold.

"..the panel carefully considered the appeal in accordance with the terms of reference and panel rules.

The panel noted the claim for losses, as set out in appeal form, along with the banks response of same.

The panel noted that the bank had withdrawn its tracker mortgage product from the market prior to entering into a contract with the bank. [Mortgage taken out in December 2008 - BB] However the panel noted that not withstanding this, the banks terms and conditions made reference to an option to be offered a tracker rate at the end of a fixed rate period and that no such tracker had been offered at the end of the fixed rate periods.

Having considered the matter in detail, the panel was satisfied that had the bank offered a tracker rate at the end of the fixed rate period, it was contractually entitled to offer the then prevailing rate.

The panel was satisfied that had they been offered tracker mortgages in February 2010, when the fixed rate periods came to an end, the prevailing rate of a tracker mortgage at that time would have equalled or exceeded the standard variable rate or fixed rate.

The Panel noted that on 12 March 2020, the FSPO made a finding on a case with some facts common to this appeal. As a result of this finding the Panel noted that the Bank had made additional compensation and taken steps to provide further redress. The panel further noted that this payment was made outside of the redress and compensation payment initially made in respect of the Tracker Mortgage examination programme.

Having considered all documentation, the panel determined that no direct financial loss was suffered as a result of the bank not offering tracker mortgages at the then prevailing rates, when the fixed rate periods came to an end and, in the circumstances, agreed that no further compensation should be awarded under the Panels remit.."

I don't know what to make of this.

They seem to be saying:

The Central Bank's Tracker Mortgage Examination (TME) and the Ombudsman's process are completely separate.

The Ombudsman's decision is not relevant to us.

We have concluded that you made no loss, so we are rejecting your appeal. We don't care what the Ombudsman said.

Brendan

I presume everyone else is going to get the same standard rejection.

This is what I think you should do next.

1) Reject the decision. Send back the form.

2) You have plenty of time to decide what to do. A year at least from the date of the Appeals Panel decision

3) There are two elements to redress

• The refund of the overcharge
• Compensation for distress and inconvenience

4) The 12% awarded by the Ombudsman is a very adequate refund of the overcharge.
4A) A number of people have challenged AIB's interpretation that the interest on the 12% should be paid as simple interest. I don't think anyone else needs to challenge this yet. Let's see AIB's response. If they accept it, they should roll it out to everyone. If they reject it, then I will draft a standard complaint to the Ombudsman, so there won't be much work in submitting such a complaint.

5) The Ombudsman did not award Karen any compensation for distress and inconvenience. However, if you have suffered it, you can write to AIB directly and seek such compensation. If you are not happy with their response, you should complain to the Ombudsman.

Brendan

Brendan Burgess said:

I presume everyone else is going to get the same standard rejection.

This is what I think you should do next.

1) Reject the decision. Send back the form.

2) You have plenty of time to decide what to do. A year at least from the date of the Appeals Panel decision

3) There are two elements to redress

• The refund of the overcharge
• Compensation for distress and inconvenience

4) The 12% awarded by the Ombudsman is a very adequate refund of the overcharge.
4A) A number of people have challenged AIB's interpretation that the interest on the 12% should be paid as simple interest. I don't think anyone else needs to challenge this yet. Let's see AIB's response. If they accept it, they should roll it out to everyone. If they reject it, then I will draft a standard complaint to the Ombudsman, so there won't be much work in submitting such a complaint.

5) The Ombudsman did not award Karen any compensation for distress and inconvenience. However, if you have suffered it, you can write to AIB directly and seek such compensation. If you are not happy with their response, you should complain to the Ombudsman.

Brendan

Click to expand...

AIB certainly don't do contrition or humility it seems. I thought this whole saga had been put to bed with the FSPO decision last year? It seems the AIB panel are giving the two finger salute to the Ombudsman!

Very disappointing to see this Brendan, is it likely that the ‘complaints process’ will mirror the ‘appeals panel’ ?
it feels very much like AIB are happy to drag this out.
how do you see the ombudsman dealing with these cases Brendan?

We got the same letter last week.

RealDeal said:

is it likely that the ‘complaints process’ will mirror the ‘appeals panel’ ?

Click to expand...

Hi RD

I don't know.

If AIB had any sense, which I doubt, they should adopt a generous and efficient approach to reasonable claims for compensation and settle them quickly.

If they don't do so, the people will be able to go to the Ombudsman.

AIB might make the calculation " If we settle claims quickly and generously, it will only encourage more complaints. While it will be far more expensive in individual cases to go to the Ombudsman rather than settle it directly ourselves, by pushing people to the Ombudsman, it will discourage a whole slew of complaints."

RealDeal said:

how do you see the ombudsman dealing with these cases Brendan?

Click to expand...

The Ombudsman will deal with them just like any other cases i.e. he will judge each case on its merits.

He has established the general principle that these people lost out by not being offered a tracker.

They have been fairly "refunded" for that loss.

If the loss has not caused them any further inconvenience, he won't award them any more.

If they have been greatly inconvenienced e.g. inability to get credit elsewhere, he will award them further compensation.

Brendan

Brendan Burgess said:

If AIB had any sense, which I doubt, they should adopt a generous and efficient approach to reasonable claims for compensation and settle them quickly.

Click to expand...

If they had done this with us a few years ago I think most people would've jumped at the chance of a smaller settlement than the actual amount they eventually got. A €330 million lesson followed by them refusing to do the right thing so you'd think someone with a bit of sense in their would finally spin this in a positive light for them and just put this to bed

I received the same standard rejection letter from the appeals panel yesterday. Thank you for the advice Brendan we will reject the decision of the panel and await further information before deciding on the next course of action. Thanks again

Hi Brendan,

I just joined. Thanks so much for all your dedicated work. I am so grateful and thankful for all your efforts. It has made a huge difference to me and I really appreciate all your work.

I had previously sent the letters you suggested here to the appeals panel. I have a similar reply from the appeals panel to what is mentioned here.

I guess I am a bit nervous about replying with reject given that I feel very satisfied with the outcome to date. I was even thinking about not replying to the letter but if you feel that reject is the best option I will. Will rejecting the appeals panel decision have any impact on the compensation already received or will it result in any other fees/ charges going forward? I guess that is what I am nervous about.

Sorry if these seem like silly questions, I understand why others here may not be satisfied but guess I am happy with the outcome to date and so thankful for your efforts.

kind regards,

Mbr

Hi MBR

I initially was of the view that people did not need to return the letter, but the consensus view here was that it should be formally rejected.

I think it's a bit odd that they send you a letter rejecting your appeal and then you are asked if you accept or reject their decision.

But if you don't intend to take it any further , i.e., if you don't intend to appeal to the Ombudsman, then it doesn't matter whether your return the form or not.

The money you have already received is safe. Whether you accept the rejection, reject the rejection, or ignore the rejection, that is your money to keep.

It is free to go to the Ombudsman.

Brendan