Banks trying to systematically change terms and condtions

[Mr Holmes]

Harry Whelehan SC, reviewed 31 random cases that the FSO adjudicated on in the calendar years 2013 and 2014. All 31 cases are examined individually in the report, 8 of these relate to mortgages.

To me, it seems the report is very positive on how the FSO investigates and adjudicates on complaints, some of Harry’s General Comments are;

The methodology in investigating complaints and assembling the evidence and in evaluating the submissions of the Complainant and the Respondent is sound, consistent and effective. I have examined the complaints procedure followed by the FSOB and consider it to be adequate and appropriate and in the cases which I have reviewed, those procedures have been followed.

The principles of natural justice appear to be to the forefront and applied in all cases reviewed.

The Findings were of a high standard* in all cases…………………………………………

[broken link removed]

These cases were looked at from the view point of an ex attorney general, in other words with regards to contractual obligations of the agreement as oppose to the willow the wisp concept of fairness that cannot be pinned down contractually ( unless the contract term in question is unconscionable ). Having said this I have great respect for Mr Whelehan, a great legal mind.

 

[Black_Adder]

So I assume twofor1 what you are saying is that all is well with the FSO. Even the current FSO is not trying to defend the position.
Did you read the press conference statement?
I have read significant number of their cases - they will not address matter unless you highlight them.
I have read replies from Banks that are plain and simply wrong.
We could shape the figures any way you like - but it was William Prasifka who used the 90% figure.

Our great leader said:

"...The mortgages figures are interesting as well

12% upheld
16% partially upheld
72% rejected

Does partially upheld include the guy who does not get his tracker back but gets €1,000 compensation for maladministration?

Aug 21, 2013 .."

The problem with partially up held is that it is often insignificant - is that not also misleading?

 

[twofor1]

So I assume twofor1 what you are saying is that all is well with the FSO.

Certainly not, see post #25 in this tread, particularly the last paragraph.

 

[Sarenco]

Hi Padraig

Almost nine months on, I wonder are you in a position at this stage to comment further on your original assertion that:

I have uncovered a deliberate and concerted effort by all lenders to strategically alter the terms and conditions that were agreed at the outset of mortgage loans.

This would obviously be a genuinely shocking discovery if literally true but I've often wondered if you meant something else.

 

[Sarenco]

Has anybody published any evidence that any bank attempted to "strategically alter the terms and conditions that were agreed at the outset of mortgage loans"? I certainly haven't seen any such evidence.

 

[Lone Star]

Is the Matei case not along these lines? lots of EU and unfair terms being talked about lately. Master of High Court mentioned something recently also on unfair terms ....

 

[Sarenco]

The Matei case had nothing to do with anybody altering the terms of any contract - strategically or otherwise.

I think we will just have to be patient if we want to learn what has been uncovered by the OP in this regard.

 

[Bronte]

Has anybody published any evidence that any bank attempted to "strategically alter the terms and conditions that were agreed at the outset of mortgage loans"? I certainly haven't seen any such evidence.

So how do you explain the fact that so many customers were denied trackers

How was a procedure put in place to deny them back their trackers

Who made the decision

Where are the minutes of the meeeting where this was discussed

Where is the written instructions from top management to the guys in the banks that deal with the customers

Who wrote out the standard letters denying trackers back

etc etc etc

 

[Sarenco]

So how do you explain the fact that so many customers were denied trackers

Bronte

With respect, you are very clearly trying to misrepresent my post.

Many, if not most, of our lenders very obviously breached the terms of their contractual obligations to their customers with regard to the tracker issue. That is absolutely clear and totally uncontroversial.

That obviously required a decision to be taken by somebody and it seems highly improbable that any such decision would have been taken by anybody outside of the very top tier of management in each relevant institution. Again, totally uncontroversial.

However, in the opening post Padraic stated as follows:-

I have uncovered a deliberate and concerted effort by all lenders to strategically alter the terms and conditions that were agreed at the outset of mortgage loans.

That seems an extraordinary claim if literally true and I have simply asked Padraic if he is in a position to comment further on this matter.

 

[Bronte]

So Sarenco, a deliberate and concerted effort by all lenders to stragically alter the terms and conditions that were ageed at the outset on tracker mortgages, as evidenced by the thousands of people involved, is what then?

By the way, why do you think it is that nobody has been able to get a copy of the minutes of the meetings or the directions from top management?

 

[Sarenco]

So Sarenco, is a deliberate and concerted effort by all lenders to stragically alter the terms and conditions that were ageed at the outset on tracker mortgages, as evidenced by the thousands of people involved, is what then?

Bronte

There is a world of difference between breaching the terms of a contract and altering the terms of that contract without the agreement of the other party.

The former is a civil matter, the latter is a serious crime.

It would be truly shocking if it turned out that there had been a concerted, industry-wide attempt by lenders to alter the terms of previously agreed loan contracts without the agreement of their respective borrowers.

By the way, why do you think it is that nobody has been able to get a copy of the minutes of the meetings or the directions from top management?

No idea. Why are you directing that question to me?

 

[Bronte]

It would be truly shocking if it turned out that there had been a concerted, industry-wide attempt by lenders to alter the terms of previously agreed loan contracts without the agreement of their respective borrowers.

If your contract says you're entitled to a tracker and you don't get it, what do you call that other than an attempt, which succeeded, by the lenders to alter the terms of a previously agreed loan contract.

Can you define the difference between breach and alter?

Also I just wondered if you know of such minutes, because I assume you work in that general area, ie finance. So maybe you might be in teh know. Someone must know. And I've been banging on about this for years now. Which is why about two weeks ago I read an article on it. In the Examiner I think it was. I meant to put it up here but forgot.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

I have uncovered a deliberate and concerted effort by all lenders to strategically alter the terms and conditions that were agreed at the outset of mortgage loans

There is a world of difference between breaching the terms of a contract and altering the terms of that contract without the agreement of the other party.

Hi Sarenco

I can't speak for Padraic, but I would imagine that he means a deliberate attempt to breach the terms and conditions, rather than to alter them.

If you and I agree something. Then I regret the deal and try to insist that it means something else. Am I breaching the terms and conditions or altering them?

In any event, I am trying to evade my obligations.

Brendan

 

[Sarenco]

Can you define the difference between breach and alter?

Seriously Bronte, they are hardly obscure words! If you genuinely don't understand the difference could I respectfully suggest that you consult a dictionary.

Also I just wondered if you know of such minutes, because I assume you work in that general area, ie finance. So maybe you might be in teh know.

Nope.

 

[Bronte]

Seriously Bronte, they are hardly obscure words! If you genuinely don't understand the difference could I respectfully suggest that you consult a dictionary.

I'm asking the difference as regards court. You brought up the law.

Honestly don't care if it was breach or alter. Both are wrong behaviour. Which is what I along with the tracker holders are interested in.

 

[Sarenco]

I can't speak for Padraic, but I would imagine that he means a deliberate attempt to breach the terms and conditions, rather than to alter them.

You might well be right Brendan, which is why I asked Padraic the following:-

Almost nine months on, I wonder are you in a position at this stage to comment further on your original assertion that ...
This would obviously be a genuinely shocking discovery if literally true but I've often wondered if you meant something else.

If you and I agree something. Then I regret the deal and try to insist that it means something else. Am I breaching the terms and conditions or altering them?

Parties regularly have genuine disputes as to the correct interpretation of contractual provisions and we have mechanisms in place for resolving those disputes. However, you can't unilaterally revise/alter/change the contract wording because you regret the terms of the bargain.

 

[Sarenco]

I'm asking the difference as regards court.

The words are given their ordinary, usual meaning.

I have already explained why the difference is significant - one is a crime.

 

[Bronte]

The words are given their ordinary meaning.

We shall see. Anyway Revenue swore black was white in relation to one word and the court decided otherwise. So I'll wait until we see what happens as regards trackers and the Central Bank etc.

 

[Sarenco]

Indeed.

However, if there is prima facie evidence that bank officials have been falsifying loan documents then I would expect the Gardaí/DPP to take an interest.

 

[Bronte]

Indeed.

However, if there is prima facie evidence that bank officials have been falsifying loan documents then I would expect the Gardaí/DPP to take an interest.

Ok, now I get you. That wasn't what I was tallking about. We were at cross purposes.