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]
So I assume twofor1 what you are saying is that all is well with the FSO.
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.
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
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
I'm asking the difference as regards court.
The words are given their ordinary meaning.
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.
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?