AIB Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?


Absolutely I agree. We are all angry with AIB. But if you got the write down you are getting the cheque. If you didn't get the write down ring the helpline and confirm you will get the cheque.

A lot of people on here have been fighting, discussing the issues, spending their own money on legal advice, and yes, waiting for years. A few more days won't change much is the only point I'm making.
 
Receiving unexpected money is always nice but make no mistake about it, this is no gift from AIB. I for one struggled for a time with a mortgage which had I of had the tracker would have made my life easier. At the time we were going through a massive recession and any pleas to AIB feel on deaf ears. I was diagnosed with cancer and asked for a 3 month payment holiday, after never missing a payment despite the struggle to pay every month. After meeting the bank manager, she said they would give me the payment holiday with a parting quote as I walked out the door “despite what you may think we are not all monsters”. An hour later I received an email saying my request was denied. I put it to her if the payment holiday was to facilitate a travel break and not cancer treatment would she have denied the request, she didn’t answer.

I believe I am entitled to a full tracker and for me this is only the start of it. I will spend every penny of the money they give me back (after all it was my money to begin with) to fight this every inch of the way. The money is no longer relevant it’s the principal, and I will have my day.
 
I doubt anyone would feel grateful for being ripped off. For me the cheque is irrelevant, it will be gone quick enough, the last 10 years are unfortunately already gone
 
KurtKasino said:
I doubt anyone would feel grateful for being ripped off. For me the cheque is irrelevant, it will be gone quick enough, the last 10 years are unfortunately already gone
Click to expand...

The write down and cheque are not irrelevant to us. They are great things but to each their own I guess.
 

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
 
Any specific TD /minister?
 
I think Confused20 might be getting mixed up between "cohort" and "cahoot".
Not defending AIB but presumably they had to come up with a timeframe within which they could be confident of getting everything done. People would be unhappy if others got their cheques and they were waiting another week or so.
At least this way everyone will receive theirs within a day or two of each other.
 

Although this may feel like, for a lot of people; having a win on winning streak, I think it is important to remember that this is your money that AIB are giving back to you.....AIB are not giving you anything extra.... only part of what you overpaid as they did not offer you the tracker rate you were entitled to.....i hate to say this but AIB are still the big winners in this one....that is why they are settling in the hope that this all goes away.

But what I will say is that they would have gotten away with a lot more, if it wasn't for the hardwork of Brendan who brought the fight to AIB by presenting a generic case to the Ombudsman that would represent all our interests.....thank you Brendan!!
 

I have to disagree with the above if that is ok.

I will use ourselves as an example. I think we went mortgage approved in October 2008 but didn't draw down until early Jan 2009, so 4 months past trackers being withdrawn to new entrants, we got that letter like everyone else at the time. We would have worked away in good faith that we were not entitled to a tracker and such is life.

We did however have clause 3.2 in our mortgage contracts. This clause being in the contract for new mortgages post the withdrawal of trackers is a mistake by AIB, plain and simple. I don't believe there was a grand plan to rip us off, it was a mistake, all be it a mistake in a legally binding contract.

It would be really interesting to see a breakdown of the legion between pre October 2008 and post October 2008 when mortgages were drawn down. If it was post October 2008, then you are unequivocally blessed to have clause 3.2. I think. Heck even if you a little before October 2008, AIB never intended to charge you whatever your first fixed rate was and then cut that rate in half. For the rest of your mortgage or until ECB rates recovered, which could be another 5/10 years. If people were truthful, they never entered their mortgages expecting that either.

Years later, way cleverer people than me saw the value in 3.2 and won a case with the FSPO and AIB lost and AIB lost badly, and this isn't over either.

Granted, of course there was a contractual entitlement to a tracker in the mortgage contracts but the reality is a lot more nuanced. In my opinion anyway. People can feel aggrieved or people can feel grateful, up to the person I suppose.
 
Megafan said:
This clause being in the contract for new mortgages post the withdrawal of trackers is a mistake by AIB, plain and simple.
Click to expand...
Hi Megafan. I'm not sure I agree that it was a simple mistake. Any bank worth their salt, before embarking on any major service-change project (for example, the removal of tracker mortgages from the market) would at the very least have had their internal and/or external lawyers review their standard T&Cs (in this case, Mortgage contracts) to establish whether anything in those T&Cs could impact the proposed service change.

It would have been extraordinary for AIB not to have at least done this before implementing the removal of tracker products.

Plus AIB did not remove trackers overnight - we see from this forum that AIB had in practice stopped offering trackers to customers well before they formally announced their removal. Indeed, when I approached AIB for a mortgage in 2008, trackers had not been formally withdrawn, but I was directed towards a fixed or variable rate.

Whilst it certainly was a mistake (which AIB are paying for dearly now), I'm not convinced that it was a mistake arising from mere oversight. Indeed, I would suggest that the decision to withdraw tracker options to all customers was more in the nature of a calculated risk, done in the hope that no-one would notice and if anyone did notice, AIB would be able to fend off any criticism with the feeble arguments it ultimately made to the Ombudsman. Unsuccessfully.

In any event, whether the mistake was accidental or calculated, we will perhaps never know.
 
Had AIB done the "right thing" then people exiting a fixed rate in 2009, 2010 or 2011 would have been offered a tracker rate of ECB + circa 5%. We have all benefitted from the fact that AIB did not do the right thing and instead unilaterally withdrew the option to "a tracker at the then prevailing rate". This was a breach of contract and has led us to the victory we have achieved. In a way we have all benefitted by AIB's institutional stupidity in not doing the right thing.

I question whether some people really understand the process that has gotten us here. The ombudsman is inundated with people who would like to have a tracker but who have no contractual right to one. Our cohort had a contractual right to one and that was breached by AIB. But if AIB had fulfilled that right we would have been offered a tracker at a rate similar to the prevailing SVR at the time we exited. We would not have been offered ECB +1.5% when the ECB rate was 0%! AIB tried to pull a fast one and it has backfired on them to the tune of €300M. To our advantage.

Are people entitled to persue AIB for compensation? Absolutely. Are people entitled to appeal to the FSPO for a tracker if they feel they have a case? Absolutely. Were AIB intransigent and downright nasty in their dealings with us? Absolutely. But do not confuse that with an open and shut case for a cheap tracker. A group of about 60 of us on this forum paid money from our own pockets several years ago to a senior council for a legal opinion on this issue and he came down on the side of AIB. This fight was never a forgone conclusion.

Read the ombudsman's findings in its entirety. It is a forensic breakdown of what AIB did wrong before, during and after October 10 2008.

Make no mistake, the raison d'être of a bank is to make a profit for its shareholders - sometimes at the expense it's customers. Our mission should be to hold them to account. Brendan and others here have done just that and in the process we are all a lot better off.
 
Last edited:
Megafan said:
The write down and cheque are not irrelevant to us. They are great things but to each their own I guess.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant is probably the wrong word as the money makes a difference, but personally grateful is not an emotion I feel in this scenario, I'm still at the anger stage
 

Hi @Megafan,

I think you make a valid point about people who drew down post October 2008 but nevertheless everyone in this cohort had a contractual right to be offered a tracker rate when coming off a fixed rate.

It was a big mistake on the part of AIB to not set a new prevailing tracker margin when they stopped offering a the tracker to new customers. It was also a mistake to leave the terms and conditions of the contract the same post October 2008. However, the fact is that the last available tracker margin was 1.5% until AIB changed it again in 2013.

AIB are extremely fortunate that the ombudsman did not just take the last available tracker margin and apply that to everyone's mortgage account.

The customers of AIB should not have to pay for the mistakes of AIB. Getting some of what we were contractually entitled to back is really great but I have to reiterate that AIB are the real winners considering the number of mistakes they have made.
 
blue_steel said:
Had AIB done the "right thing" then people exiting a fixed rate in 2009, 2010 or 2011 would have been offered a tracker rate of ECB + circa 5%.
Click to expand...

Hi blue steel

The main point of our case was that no one can say now what would have happened.

However, it's extremely unlikely that the margin would have been 0.5% given that it was increased to 1.5% in July 2008.

Brendan
 
Last edited:
verywhys said:
I have to reiterate that AIB are the real winners
Click to expand...

It's a very interesting point of view.

Had AIB been smart, they would have offered a prevailing margin of 5% and no one would have accepted it.

I very much doubt that AIB management think that they are the winners.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Hi blue steel

The main point of our case was that no one can say now what would have happened.

However, it's extremely unlikely that the margin would have been 0.5% given that it was increased to 1.5% in July 2009.

Brendan
Click to expand...

Hi Brendan. I said 5% not 0.5%?
My point was that as the ECB rate dropped AIB would have increased the margin to maintain a profit on the product. A tracker would have been similar to the SVR at best. The margin would not have stayed as low as it was in 2008.
 
Last edited:
A lot of different opinions and circumstances. For me the fact is I never had a tracker , I was just not offered one . Had I been offered I may not have even taken it . When I was way behind in arrears aib never chased me aggressively. I was allowed to stay in my home. Given a restructured loan with split mortgage and a write down . I have now received another substantial write down and a cheque for 15k approx on the way . So for me I am delighted but I understand other people feel differently .
 

Timing is everything here. They could have got the sequencing upside down giving everything that was happening at the time.

Withdraw first, understand later, while the walls were crashing down. AIB could have sincerely believed their losses could be capped at 4bn and maybe have reintroduced trackers a couple of years later at a marginal improvement over variable for customers but circumstances took over.

Post that AIB acted like any corporation would, protect itself first. At a personal level, people will always conflagrate personal circumstances and the actions of the bank as a whole, but @Introuble83 gives a great example where AIB worked with their situation to help.

I am uncomfortable to use too negative descriptions of AIB, these things are complex on many levels but AIB were ultimately held to account. I think the story isn't over for the 5,600 really but it really boils down to a pure legal decision on the prevailing rate versus being entitled to last prevailing rate. If it turns out everyone ends up on 1.5% down the line, it would be good fortune on an unprecedented level for everyone. I think anyway.

This thread has been really good with a diversity of opinion, whether that was the intention or not!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register