Sorry thats what I meant by TRS I believe they are due redress too!Would mortgage interest relief come into play also? Could the revenue seek to claim back taxes on that relief I wonder.
We're still waiting for the Ombudsman to publish his decission in relation to the Prevailing Rate case so there is no fixed time line on that. Mr Hunt did say he wanted to put legacy issues behind him so the hope is AIB will move quickly to get this closed out but no one can say with any certainty what will happen and when.So what happens next? How long do we wait for another decision etc??
I don't know if the bank has been so explicate to date in identifying the Grouping publically
Great thank you BrendanYes. If you the €1,615, you had clause 3.2 in your contract.
Brendan
An interesting point. I have always thought of them as the €1,615 group. If you got the letter, you are included.
If you have Clause 3.2, you are included.
There was some argument that "everyone knew that AIB had withdrawn trackers in October 2008, so anyone who drew down a mortgage after that had a weak case.". I never understood that argument. If someone had clause 3.2 in their contract, it did not matter if they drew down their mortgage in 2007 or 2009.
Brendan
I see that AIB share price has dropped almost 30% since the 4th Feb announcement of the EUR 300 million provision - not sure how much of this is related to COVID19 or just the tracker provision alone.
Some time back a poster suggested if AIB lost the case in the High Court, then it was possible that the ultimate sanction was to write off the mortgage since AIB weren't honouring a specific T&C, which would be favourable to the customer and continued to deny that customer the right to same. I have no idea if that was based in reality or not, I don't know if that is a stretch or not but it might be a risk.Out of curiosity,is there any downside in AIB taking it to the high court? Might be a bit of reputational damage. But people forget as time goes on anyway. On the upside they could save themselves 300 million. Anyone here know the biggest downside in AIB challenging?
if AIB lost the case in the High Court, then it was possible that the ultimate sanction was to write off the mortgage
It's very hard to predict what any bank would do. And I do not want to speculate about AIB as I am involved in the case.
But the downsides to a lender challenging the Ombudsman are
Either the borrower or the lender can challenge the Ombudsman's decision. But the bar is very high as I have set out in this post:
- Continued uncertainty for a few years. The Stock Market can live with a specific cost. It's written off and becomes history. But they would be very worried about a legal case with an unquantifiable outcome.
- The High Court does not make an award. The judge would just set aside the decision of the Ombudsman and tell him to review his decision along the following lines.... So, in theory, the Ombudsman could review the decision and make a bigger award against the bank.
- It was ptsb's appeal to the High Court and then the Supreme Court which finally prodded the Central Bank to take action. I would imagine that the Central Bank would frown upon any bank challenging the Ombudsman's decision. And when they stop frowning, they would probably remind the bank's executives that any promotions or more senior jobs in other banks would be subject to the Central Bank's Fitness and Probity regime. They would be very brave to ignore that.
- The reputational damage is big. They are dragging it out for years.
Key Post - Appealing an Ombudsman's decision to the High Court
In a case today, of Alan and Deirdre Grant vs. Permanent TSB with the Ombudsman as notice party, Justice Hedigan set down the basis on which the High Court would overturn the Ombudsman's decision. I think that this is a very clear setting out of the approach. In summary - unless the Ombudsman's...www.askaboutmoney.com
Finnegan P. in Ulster Bank v. Financial Services Ombudsman & Drs. [2006J IEHC 323:
"To succeed on this appeal the Plaintiff must establish as a matter of probability that, taking the adjudicative process as a whole, the decision reached was vitiated by a serious and significant error or a series of such errors.
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?