Thanks a million Brendan and everyone else that guided us with our appeal process. I'm delighted there is some light at the end of the tunnel but that said I don't for a minute think this is the end of it. Going forward for the remaining years of my mortgage with a tracker is what I will continue to fight for and I hope I'm not alone.
Your not alone..
Hi Megafan
Is that a bad choice of words on your part?
They conceded nothing.
They have been dragged kicking and screaming on this issue for 5 years now. They conceded nothing.
They refused point blank that these customers were even impacted.
They refused to write to them telling them that they were not impacted.
They spoke down to me and Alan when we raised the issue over the last three AGMs.
They made a laughing stock of themselves in front of the Oireachtas Finance Committee defending the indefensible.
The Central Bank forced them to admit them to the Ombudsman and legal process.
The Appeals Panel cut and paste the AIB press release into their rejection of every appeal on the issue.
During the Ombudsman process they refused to mediate for settlement, but would only mediate "for clarification"
They robustly attacked every point made during the exchanges with the Ombudsman.
After the preliminary decision was issued and after they had announced that they were making a provision of €300m, they lodged a 10 page series of legal challenges to that preliminary decision.
They waited 35 days after the final decision was issued before they decided not to appeal to the High Court and concede defeat.
So that is all they conceded - defeat after years of conceding nothing else.
While at the same time claiming "We put the customer at the centre of everything".
Brendan
Hi Megafan
Is that a bad choice of words on your part?
They conceded nothing.
They have been dragged kicking and screaming on this issue for 5 years now. They conceded nothing.
They refused point blank that these customers were even impacted.
They refused to write to them telling them that they were not impacted.
They spoke down to me and Alan when we raised the issue over the last three AGMs.
They made a laughing stock of themselves in front of the Oireachtas Finance Committee defending the indefensible.
The Central Bank forced them to admit them to the Ombudsman and legal process.
The Appeals Panel cut and paste the AIB press release into their rejection of every appeal on the issue.
During the Ombudsman process they refused to mediate for settlement, but would only mediate "for clarification"
They robustly attacked every point made during the exchanges with the Ombudsman.
After the preliminary decision was issued and after they had announced that they were making a provision of €300m, they lodged a 10 page series of legal challenges to that preliminary decision.
They waited 35 days after the final decision was issued before they decided not to appeal to the High Court and concede defeat.
So that is all they conceded - defeat after years of conceding nothing else.
While at the same time claiming "We put the customer at the centre of everything".
Brendan
Hi Brendan
Have you seen the full written response from the ombudsman? For those of us who have not, there seems to be some unanswered questions.
IF so, then in your view did the ombudsman set out good logic in justifying his decision?
Please note I am not looking for detailed answers to the below. But rather, I am wondering in your opinion, if the ombudsman broadly speaking did a good job in justifying his position?
Questions for me are:
- Why could he not decide on an appropriate prevailing rate?
- Did he give a good reasoning for the 12% figure?
- DId he give good reasoning as to why he did not restore Karen back onto the original tracker?
- Has he set out any broad terms in taking care of people who lost their property? (This seems nigh on impossible to me if we cannot determine how much people were overcharged in the first instance). OR was this not referenced at all given it did not impact Karen?
Is there further compensation payment under consideration - will an additional “compensation” payment be made to karen or is this implicit within 12% capital write down above?
I can sense your utter frustration and anger from this post. I hope you and yours have not been worn down too much by being involved in this, and hopefully you derive a level of satisfaction from the result that makes your commitment feel worthwhile, at some level.
How would this impact the cash sum element, the 4%?
AIB is applying the finding to other customers in the same cohort.
The Ombudsman insists that only he can publish the decision.
But this is a summary of what he found.
AIB did breach the contract and should have offered a tracker mortgage to Karen.
AIB was wrong to say what the rate would have been - their report could, at best, conclude what it should have been.
He could not decide what the rate would have been either.
He felt that, under the circumstances, it would be unfair to AIB to give Karen a tracker for the remainder of her mortgage.
As a fair balance, he ordered AIB to write down the balance of Karen's mortgage by 12% of the balance on the day she rolled off the fixed rate and should have been offered a tracker in 2010.
And to pay her, into her nominated account, the interest charged on that write off since 2010. That amounted to roughly a further 4% of the balance as of October 2010.
It seems therefore to be an increased breach of contract payment rather than the ombudsman accepting the prevailing rate argument. Might be worth continuing with cases to the ombudsman based on other issues such as contra proferentem etc.
I'm no expert. I can send you what I included in my appeal to the FSPO if you like. The case is still under consideration. I will direct message you.Hiya Blue_steel, will you explain contra proferentem ?
This seem very interesting?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?