Contra proferens is a legal doctrine (convention) which results in courts interpreting ambiguous clauses in contracts against those who drafted them. In other words, the courts will interpret ambiguous clauses in favour of the weaker party to the contract - in this instance, the lowly bank customer. That’s how it’s supposed to work anyways!Hiya Blue_steel, will you explain contra proferentem ?
This seem very interesting?
Is there a chance of some of us bringing it further though and having a good case ???? Ie stress, no quality of life for so long because no money to do anything only keep a roof over our heads!!!!
Good work and patience to all involved.
Query:
So if one felt their case merited more compensation, for such things as , opportunities lost, or compensation for paying a substantial breakage cost, and not being offered tracker, such things
which arent referenced in this particular case, by potentially refusing to accept t& cs offered in JULy/August, and proceeding to FSPO , does this mean one would leave themselves open to potentially not being awarded anything at all, despite being in the 1615 cohort ? Or how would an individual appeal to FSPO work?
This is not a finding on the prevailing rate that should of been applied issue at all really but more a breach of contract payment! How can the FSPO find that a person overpaid on the last 10 years of their mortgage and now go ahead and overpay in the remainder of their term! Doesn't make sense.
You are able to take what is initially offered and then appeal further without any risk of initial offer being withdrawn
Hi z
That is certainly the way that previous redress programmes work and I assume that this one will be the same.
I thought that FAQ referred to previous ones, but it's not clear to me.
I think you are right, but let's wait until we see the redress programme.
Brendan
Absolutely. Anyway take the 12% and appeal the decision. Nothing to lose.This is not a finding on the prevailing rate that should of been applied issue at all really but more a breach of contract payment! How can the FSPO find that a person overpaid on the last 10 years of their mortgage and now go ahead and overpay in the remainder of their term! Doesn't make sense.
From what Brendan said "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." I'm reading this to mean that on the issue of Prevailing Rate the FSPO supported both arguments equally and split the finding 50/50 so half the term at the equlivent of a tracker at 1.5% the remainder at variable or whatever you choose to do with it.
Have you heard of contra proferentem?
Absolutely. Anyway take the 12% and appeal the decision. Nothing to lose.
Yeah possibly. I was thinking because AIB was making a new redress offer rather than the FSPO finding in an individuals favour (apart from the test case) then it would be possible to go through the process again i.e. appeal to the bank and then FSPO.True. Although an appeal would presumably have to go to straight high court would it not? (Assuming no unique circumstances of course) That could cost a lot of money.
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?