AIB Appeals Panel putting all cases on hold to see if they are prevailing rate cases?

[Megafan]

Called the BDO today for an update on our appeal to see what they said. They explained they were very much in the dark on this too had had little/no information from AIB often learning about progress in the media. They did say that there was a letter issuing this week that had an update beyond regular your appeal is on hold we've been getting. I suspect it might just be to confirm what we already know re-implementing the FSPOs discussion.

I had forgotten about this thread. You are very proactive with BDO so fair play. I don't know if there are legs in this appeal process, it would be interesting if there was but this week might tell a lot. Based on Brendan's advise to the Group, we put lots around consumer protection not to mention noting a compensation amount and extra bits and pieces. I expect AIB just wants this to go away but the Panel in theory is independent.

It seems like a lifetime ago when we all were sending our responses to the panel via BDO, a lot has happened for sure in the meantime. If for instance the panel issue a blanket response to everyone whose appeal hasn't been rejected saying AIB is rolling out the redress to everyone so this means case closed, contact FSPO if not happy, then thats that I expect but who knows.

I wonder if the CBI are interested in how this panel has operated if x proportion of similar appeals have been rejected while y proportion of similar appeals will have been upheld in effect based on the FSPO decision. Upheld would be the wrong word though because no-one has seen the FSPO judgement in the wider community and even if they had, the redress doesn't look anything like what people were looking for under this appeal process.

The last part is where I am struggling to make sense of how the processes align to resolution, because of the differences in what was appealed versus what is redressed. I'd imagine 100 times out of 100, the Panel if it was operating effectively would never have come to a similar conclusion as the FSPO on redress in terms of its specifics (which in no way diminishes the FSPO redress).

Apologies for the rambling above, the mechanics of this interest me in terms of coming to an understandable conclusion given the time put into it.

 

[tnegun]

After seeing the other thread re no further redress I thought it was worth a shot to see what appeals panel stance was. I included a claim for additional redress in my initial appeal so thought it best to let them know I didn't consider my claim settled with the FSPOs findings. Will be interesting to see what the post brings this week!

 

[Megafan]

Interesting letter from BDO today. In short AIB have told the Panel that the FSPO judgement/award supersedes the panel. Anyone unhappy with redress can contact bank/FSPO/Courts.

The Panel are referring this to the Central Bank to see how best to proceed and will advise us once the Central Bank advise them via BDO.

(Surely AIB have not given the tracker panel a stick to beat them with if the CBI say the tracker panel must formally go through the appeal process to close out).

Either way, it seems this might have a twist or turn post the letter to us in August from AIB until the CBI decide on the Panel.

 

[tnegun]

Wow, unbelievable that AIB are still trying to have it all their own way!!

 

[Megafan]

Exact wording above so people should expect similar..

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Hi mega

I can't see that attachment.

Brendan

 

[Megafan]

Hi mega

I can't see that attachment.

Brendan

Sorry Brendan, probably just the way I am adding.

In short the key paragraphs are as below, transcribed.


The bank has responded to the Panel and has advised that it will be issuing a letter to you in due course with details of the relevant account(s) adjustments and payments. The Bank have also advised the Panel that this payment of additional compensation supersedes the Tracker Mortgage Redress compensation of €1,615 previously issued to you and should you not be satisfied with the payments made to date, the appropriate course of action would be to complain to the Bank, the FSPO or the courts.

The Panel are seeking clarification from the Central Bank of Ireland on this position and will provide a further update to you once the position has been clarified.
______________________________________________________________________________

 

[Brianios]

Hi,

Would this be the case for someone who has had their mortgage written down by the 12% and is awaiting the interest cheque but is still not satisfied that a tracker mortgage rate of the current rate other tracker customers are on has not been offered to us? Sorry if I am totally mixing this up.

 

[Megafan]

Hi,

Would this be the case for someone who has had their mortgage written down by the 12% and is awaiting the interest cheque but is still not satisfied that a tracker mortgage rate of the current rate other tracker customers are on has not been offered to us? Sorry if I am totally mixing this up.

Way way back when, after the initial €1,615 refund was received, there was the opportunity for those in receipt to make an appeal to the Independent Tracker Panel making a case that you were entitled to a tracker and compensation etc.

Those of us lucky enough to be members of the forum at the time had Brendan basically quarterbacking our appeals giving us wording outlines for us to include in our appeals which we made relevant to ourselves. If you hadn't made your appeal at that time, this might not be relevant to you in terms of communication from BDO, they are separate processes to the FSPO so timelines for appealing to the Panel have long since passed.

Over time, the Tracker Panel dismissed a lot of the appeals without really giving to much thought to the appeals made. In many ways, in the opinions of many, this Panel is discredited because of this.

For reasons unknown, some appeals had not been dismissed by the Tracker Panel, ours included. So now, it is kind of an odd situation in that AIB are rolling out the redress but for some people (I have no idea how many), their appeal to the Tracker Panel is still open. The BDO letter where by the Panel now has referred AIB's action to the CBI on the surface could be significant as it might bring the actions of the Panel into light (being the dismissal of all the other cases), or it also could highlight that AIB has effectively dismissed an independent panel.

It doesn't seem like a very wise approach by AIB, basically assigning a one size fits all redress to everyone when everyone's appeal could be markedly different. Brendan has repeatedly noted Karen's case that won with the FSPO was a vanilla case, some of those who appealed to the panel lost homes, suffered severe stress, etc etc and some people want to take it further be that the Court or the FSPO. AIB dismissing one avenue of appeal could annoy the CBI and possibly strengthen the case some have against AIB. I have absolutely no idea though really, just idle speculation.

It is an interesting tangent that needs to be cleared up..

 

[Brendan Burgess]

It doesn't seem like a very wise approach by AIB, basically assigning a one size fits all redress to everyone when everyone's appeal could be markedly different.

Hi Mega

This bit is interesting.

the appropriate course of action would be to complain to the Bank, the FSPO or the courts.

The Appeals Panel has not been fit for purpose. They just delayed everything.

If someone feels that they should get more compensation, then they can complain directly to AIB.

If AIB rejects it or does not offer enough,then they can go to the Ombudsman or the Court.

This is much better than the Appeals Panel system.

Brendan

 

[David_Dublin]

Way way back when, after the initial €1,615 refund was received, there was the opportunity for those in receipt to make an appeal to the Independent Tracker Panel making a case that you were entitled to a tracker and compensation etc.

Those of us lucky enough to be members of the forum at the time had Brendan basically quarterbacking our appeals giving us wording outlines for us to include in our appeals which we made relevant to ourselves. If you hadn't made your appeal at that time, this might not be relevant to you in terms of communication from BDO, they are separate processes to the FSPO so timelines for appealing to the Panel have long since passed.

Over time, the Tracker Panel dismissed a lot of the appeals without really giving to much thought to the appeals made. In many ways, in the opinions of many, this Panel is discredited because of this.

For reasons unknown, some appeals had not been dismissed by the Tracker Panel, ours included. So now, it is kind of an odd situation in that AIB are rolling out the redress but for some people (I have no idea how many), their appeal to the Tracker Panel is still open. The BDO letter where by the Panel now has referred AIB's action to the CBI on the surface could be significant as it might bring the actions of the Panel into light (being the dismissal of all the other cases), or it also could highlight that AIB has effectively dismissed an independent panel.

It doesn't seem like a very wise approach by AIB, basically assigning a one size fits all redress to everyone when everyone's appeal could be markedly different. Brendan has repeatedly noted Karen's case that won with the FSPO was a vanilla case, some of those who appealed to the panel lost homes, suffered severe stress, etc etc and some people want to take it further be that the Court or the FSPO. AIB dismissing one avenue of appeal could annoy the CBI and possibly strengthen the case some have against AIB. I have absolutely no idea though really, just idle speculation.

It is an interesting tangent that needs to be cleared up..

Excellent summary. We're one of the ones whose appeal was rejected. We'd be very much the vanilla type case that Brendan refers to. From what I understand, the Appeals Panel gave all of us a fairly standard cut and paste response, with little or no reference to the specifics of our appeal.

As observed above, its a very strange position the Appeals Panel finds itself in.

 

[Megafan]

The Appeals Panel has not been fit for purpose. They just delayed everything.

If someone feels that they should get more compensation, then they can complain directly to AIB.

If AIB rejects it or does not offer enough,then they can go to the Ombudsman or the Court.

This is much better than the Appeals Panel system.

Brendan

I don't disagree with the above Brendan

I suppose I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing the Tracker Panel have brought attention to themselves by referring AIB's actions to the CBI for feedback. I don't know the mechanics of such things but given the FSPO decision on a clean case such as Karen's versus the decisions of the Panel on genuine hardship cases (assumedly), packed with consumer legislation etc, it might bring into question their effectiveness or independence (possibly unfair)/competence given the breath of appeals etc with the CBI.

An effective considered panel could have cut some of the possible challenges off at the pass and instead the FSPO could end up with a lot more appeals strengthened by the Karen decision (I appreciate you think the FSPO route could be spent to a degree on prevailing cases) but there isn't a line drawn in the sand I suppose for a lot of people (and I don't include ourselves in the aggrieved but I have given the impact of the decision some sideways thinking).

We will see what the CBI think in due course, it is just another angle.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

An effective considered panel could have cut some of the possible challenges off at the pass

I would expect that dealing directly with AIB will but off far more at the pass and far more quickly.

If AIB has any sense, and that is a big "if", they will settle all reasonable claims fairly quickly and not let them go to the Ombudsman.

Brendan

 

[Megafan]

Interesting note about the Independent Appeals Panel in the Q&A document (which is well written in fairness).

Q: "Can I make an appeal to the Independent Appeals Panel?"

A: "The Independent Appeals Panel is set up under the Central Banks TME framework. The FSPO payment is being made outside of the remit of this Framework and as such the appeals process does not apply to this payment"

Its just a curiosity in how this can be wound up for those with open appeals.

 

[AIB STAFF 2010]

@ Magafan
Per the letter from the independent appeal panel - In short AIB have told the Panel that the FSPO judgement/award supersedes the panel. Anyone unhappy with redress can contact bank/FSPO/Courts - now they are saying they the FSPO payment is outside of the model of the framework??? So am I right in thinking that it now doesn’t supersedes as this payment has nothing go to do with the appeal...

 

[Megafan]

@ Magafan
Per the letter from the independent appeal panel - In short AIB have told the Panel that the FSPO judgement/award supersedes the panel. Anyone unhappy with redress can contact bank/FSPO/Courts - now they are saying they the FSPO payment is outside of the model of the framework??? So am I right in thinking that it now doesn’t supersedes as this payment has nothing go to do with the appeal...

Seems to be the case. Maybe they got s slap on the wrist for that by the CBI since the panel referred AIBs stance to the CBI.

Its also interesting in that CBI said the cohort weren't covered under the TME but maybe now that only was in the context of the FSPO judgement.

Anyhoo, for those of us with open cases, the Panel seems like it is going to have to do something of substance in reply. Which might just be to say CBI think we aren't part of TME but it is a bit of a mess to clear up.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

This is what I assume that the position will be. But I am not sure.

1) It will have no role in the 5,600 prevailing rate cohort - Any cases before it will be terminated.


2) It will be full operational as normal for the 300 cohort who can appeal any aspect of the redress offered


3) It will continue for non prevailing rate tracker cases, although most of those should have been processed by now.

 

[AIB STAFF 2010]

@Megafan,

I wrote to CBI and in a nutshell

The Appeals process of the Tracker Mortgage Examination was set up to be independent of both the lender and the Central Bank. The independence of the appeals process is critical and allows the appeals to be heard on an unbiased basis. As it is an independent process, the Central Bank of Ireland does not have a role in the operation of the appeals process. However, the Central Bank expects that lenders have put in place the necessary processes to ensure the Appeals Panel can operate in line with the Framework and guidance issued.

While the Central Bank does not have a statutory role in investigating individual consumer complaints, we do use information that we receive directly from consumers to guide the scope of our broader supervisory work and your email has been passed to the relevant supervisory team in the Central Bank, to inform their ongoing supervisory work.

Any information relating to the status of your appeal should be sought from the Independent secretariat of the Appeals panel (BDO) directly.

So the appeals panel might have to grow a pair and actually read all our appeals and use their brains for once..

 

[Megafan]

Slightly different wording from BDO letter today.

Last time out they noted they had referred situation to CBI, this time around they have noted "they are seeking further information from the bank with regard to the FSPO decision". Thats all, usual thanks for your patience etc.

I still think they are in a very interesting position now. I wonder if the CBI told them to work through the process. I can't see how they can't but uphold our appeal post FSPO but they may try to make the FSPO award commensurate with the value of them upholding our appeal, all be it entirely different things in effect.

We will give them a bell next week to ask a few pointed questions, there might be legs in this yet.

 

[AIB STAFF 2010]

@ Meghan,
Thank you for your update. I also feel the -fixed rate ended between 10 Oct 08 to 12 january 2009 cohort might also help our cases. This was an arrangement between CBI and AIB, ombudsman wasn’t involved, had he known this and that a prevailing rate would be found he might have made a different decision. I wonder what the views of the legal people would be on a arrangement between CBI and AIB to restore 300 out of c6000 tracker all with the same 3.2 clause.. are the c5700 not disadvantaged now.. time will tell....