Credit Where Credit Is Due.

[rustbucket]

I have been a long time follower and a part time poster on this forum, particularly in relation to the tracker redress fiasco. Now that things have finally started to finalise (for most people) I just wanted to take a moment after some reflection to give credit where credit is due and to outline our own experience since this all started.

Firstly I understand that the entire tracker scandal has caused major stresses (economic, mental, physical, emotional) for some people. Some of which have had extremely unfortunate outcomes or impacts. I don't wish to belittle those in any way.

Secondly I would like to thank the hard work of people like Brendan and Padraic who have done so much in the background as well as many contributors on askaboutmoney.com which proved to be (yet again) an invaluable resource and source of support and information to so many.

Thirdly, I wish to acknowledge and give credit to both the Financial Services Ombudsman and the Central Bank. Without their decisions and decisiveness on these issues none of us would today be in the position we are in to have received life changing sums of money (granted it is money that we should never paid in the first place).

As humans we are very quick to judge and comment negatively when things don't go our way but we often forget to give praise to some of the very same people and institutions that often receive our negative energy.

To give my thoughts a little context- I am one of the very 'lucky' ones to have been part of the 5900 and even 'luckier' 300 cohort.

Myself and my wife took out a 90% mortgage in 2008 for €417K with AIB. We were first time buyers and jumped at the opportunity to own our first home (we grossly overpaid). We invested another €50k of our own money over the next few years improving it. Money sunk with no chance of a return.

We fixed at the time for 3 years but immediately broke out of our fixed rate a month later as interest rates started to tumble (this is what brought us into the 300 cohort).

We never had any issues with AIB (bar one) over the course of our mortgage with them. Our financial situation fluctuated dramatically as our incomes declined and both returned to university. AIB were always extremely accommodating except once when we received a fairly threatening letter (which we were later told was 'standard').

We sold our house in August 2016 and bought a new house for €450k in December 2016 where we still reside. New mortgage with AIB. Despite our ups and downs our financial situation had improved and they had no issues lending us a similar or slightly higher amount.

We found out to our surprise that our old account had fallen into a contractual failure when we received the 1650 cheque a few years back. We thought it must be a mistake as we had never realised we had been impacted. We thankfully weren't in the same boat as some of the stories in the papers at the time (people forced to sell homes, houses re-possessed etc).

We thought nothing more of it until stumbling upon the askaboutmoney threads on the issue and it really went from there.

Over this whole time we always thought 'wouldn't it be nice to get a couple of grand to pay for a holiday, clear the credit card etc.', not realising the magnitude of what was to come.

To get to the point:
We received our final letter today and because of the work of Brendan et al, the Karen case and the FSPO decision as well as the TME review order from the central bank we have received significantly more than 'a couple of grand'. Without the work of these people and institutions we would have thought nothing more of it once we got our cheque for €1650.

1. The FSPO decision has given us approximately €10K more than the TME review (hugely beneficial for most people I imagine).
2. AIB applied the FSPO decision in full to our account and paid it in cheque (as our account had closed).
3. We also received a TME payment of €1845 to go towards the cost of legal advice.
4. The TME review payment (which we did not get as the FSPO one was higher) included a 22% compensation figure rather than a 15% figure like most people got. This I believe was because we had restructured our mortgage a couple of times due to financial situations which may have been avoided if we were on a tracker, although this was not explained.
5. We sold our house voluntarily in 2016 as we wanted to trade up. We did not have to sell unlike some people.

We are absolutely delighted with the outcome and feel somewhat undeserving. At the beginning we thought 'this can't include us' as we didn't feel we were negatively affected by the bank when we thought about it at the time.

We now have a mover tracker retention rate on our existing mortgage of 2.74%. Our existing mortgage is now also under the TME review as we have technically been charged the wrong rate since Dec 2016 so we will get a refund in Dec this year plus some additional compensation. It wont be anything like what we have already received but it will be another bonus.

Do we consider ourselves extremely fortunate? Absolutely yes. Is it life changing? Absolutely yes. Would we have done anything about it ourselves? Definitely not.

I felt it was important to share and to again give credit where credit is due. The ombudsman sometimes gets a hard rap as does the central bank. They sometimes deserve it. In this instance they have given 5900 odd people a fantastic financial boost. Some went through extremely difficult times and thoroughly deserve every penny. Some in particular deserve much more and here is hoping they get it. Some (like us) appear to have gotten lucky or maybe just feel that way. None of us would have gotten anything or at best would have had to bear the brunt of an expensive court case if they did not arrive at those decisions.

We have no interest in taking this any further. We know some people do and will. I'm savvy enough to know a good deal for me when I see it.

Thank you Brendan and Padraic.
Thank you Ombudsman and the Central Bank.
Strangely also thank you to anyone working in AIB who got caught up in all this and who had nothing to do with it and who bore the brunt of all the phone calls. The poor sods were set up for a fall!

We have always banked with AIB and apart from how they have dealt with communicating this issue we have always been very happy with them. We will stay with them for now. A tracker, even at 2.74% is not to be sniffed at.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Hi Rusty

I have read that twice now. I feel as if I have had my nose down down in the dirty detail and you have caught me by the scruff of the neck and pulled me back to say "Take a wider perspective and take a longer perspective on this." So I really appreciate that.

AIB

AIB were always extremely accommodating except once when we received a fairly threatening letter (which we were later told was 'standard').

We sold our house in August 2016 and bought a new house for €450k in December 2016 where we still reside. New mortgage with AIB. Despite our ups and downs our financial situation had improved and they had no issues lending us a similar or slightly higher amount.

We have always banked with AIB and apart from how they have dealt with communicating this issue we have always been very happy with them. We will stay with them for now. A tracker, even at 2.74% is not to be sniffed at.

This highlights the issue which annoys me most about the AIB Prevailing Rate issue. Up to the Prevailing Rate shambles, AIB had been a fundamentally decent bank.

• They had good mortgage products. They had the lowest variable rate by far. They did not grossly exploit customer inertia. They passed on rate cuts to existing customers. They did not force people to fix to get a decent rate. They competed for business on rates rather than on tricks like cash back.
• They were the most enlightened bank when dealing with arrears. They had a very good, maybe too good, split mortgage. They paid the IMHO to engage with customers who were too frightened to deal with AIB directly. They were the only lender to write down existing mortgages when it was needed to make mortgages sustainable. And when a loss of ownership was inevitable, they agreed in advance a generous, time limited, settlement of the shortfall.
• And up to the Prevailing Rate issue, they were ahead of the curve on the tracker review. They paid 15% automatic compensation which was the highest of all the banks. I think that they paid more for loss of ownership cases. (OK, their Independent Appeals Panel has not been fit for purpose, but AIB actually has little control over it, once they had set it up.)

Your story highlights how well they treated ordinary customers.

AIB were always extremely accommodating except once when we received a fairly threatening letter (which we were later told was 'standard').

Despite the fact that you had to reschedule your mortgage, AIB was able to put that in perspective and grant you a larger mortgage in 2016! I would have thought that your ICB record would have shown a black mark. It is a sign of maturity in a bank that they can see the bigger picture.

And from now on, I will think of AIB, not as a good and fair lender, but as the body which used bizarre arguments to defend the indefensible and try to evade their responsibilities. And having lost the argument, dragged it out for months afterwards with appeals and delays before finally conceding. And then trying to save another few bob by paying simple interest instead of compound interest. And then the whole shambles of the Information Line and communication process.

It is actually sad. I would have probably expected that from the likes of ptsb or Bank of Ireland.

The Financial Services Ombudsman

Clearly, on the Prevailing Rate issue, I would give the Ombudsman 9/10.

I might edge that up a bit based on your account.

The FSPO decision has given us approximately €10K more than the TME review (hugely beneficial for most people I imagine).

It shows how "clever" the 12% write down and interest refund was. I have seen three of the 300 Cohort cases now, and the Ombudsman's figure has been higher in all three. Your case is the biggest difference but that is because you terminated your mortgage 4 years ago, so with the Central Bank TME you "missed out" on 4 years of overcharging.

I was disappointed with the simple vs. compound issue. But, it's a small detail in the overall context. (I feel your hand on the scruff of my neck.)

The Central Bank

Let's be absolutely clear, without the Central Bank's involvement, you would have got nothing.

It was they who insisted on the €1,650 back in 2018. That opened up the whole issue and made me realise that there were 6,000 customers. So well worth advocating for.

And by telling the banks that they expected them to apply all FSPO decisions to other impacted customers, meant that you and the 5,999 others would benefit from it.

And, you and the 300 Cohort have a particular reason to thank the Central Bank. It was the Central Bank who told AIB that they would not have been able to implement the change in tracker rate for three months.

We initially planned to go to the High Court because a win there would have created a precedent. But the risk of costs if we lost was just too high. I asked AIB to fund a High Court challenge and they refused. Weren't we lucky that they refused!

It was not clear to me then that if the Ombudsman upheld a complaint, that everyone else would benefit. I assumed that everyone would have to make their own complaint but could do so in the knowledge that the Ombudsman would probably uphold it.

So fair play to the Central Bank on this issue.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

We are absolutely delighted with the outcome and feel somewhat undeserving. At the beginning we thought 'this can't include us' as we didn't feel we were negatively affected by the bank when we thought about it at the time.

Do we consider ourselves extremely fortunate? Absolutely yes. Is it life changing? Absolutely yes. Would we have done anything about it ourselves? Definitely not.

I got a private message from another person on Monday to say that it was like winning the lottery. It was life-changing for them as well.

But I pointed out to them and I am now pointing it out to you that you are not getting an undeserved lotto win - you are just getting back the money that you were overcharged for years. You could argue that as the calculations were based on 1.74% and not 1.5% you are not even getting all that you were overcharged back.

And while I acknowledged that AIB had the lowest variable rates in Ireland, for most of the period, they were still the highest mortgage rates in the eurozone. And while 6,000 of you have been redressed, there are 300,000 other non-tracker borrowers out there who are still paying the highest mortgage rates in the eurozone.

And, we as a country, won't face up to that.

Brendan

 

[rustbucket]

I got a private message from another person on Monday to say that it was like winning the lottery. It was life-changing for them as well.

But I pointed out to them and I am now pointing it out to you that you are not getting an undeserved lotto win - you are just getting back the money that you were overcharged for years. You could argue that as the calculations were based on 1.74% and not 1.5% you are not even getting all that you were overcharged back.

And while I acknowledged that AIB had the lowest variable rates in Ireland, for most of the period, they were still the highest mortgage rates in the eurozone. And while 6,000 of you have been redressed, there are 300,000 other non-tracker borrowers out there who are still paying the highest mortgage rates in the eurozone.

And, we as a country, won't face up to that.

Brendan

Agree with everything you have said there Brendan. It wouldn't be the first time we have been overcharged, especially by banks. As I think I said in a previous post somewhere that over the last three years I have received other letters from AIB outlining mistakes and overcharges on loans that were closed years ago and a payment made to my bank account. The difference is the amounts are significantly higher (not that that should really matter), and in all other overcharging the banks were proactive about communicating efficiently and effectively with customers but most importantly apologising from the outset. People and institutions make mistakes and when they do its important that they are acknowledged, rectified and redressed (if appropriate).

I guess I am just looking at this and being thankful. We could have ended up with nothing. We may never have been aware we were overcharged in the first place. I think banking practices will change for the better going forward with increased regulation, mandatory participation in governance and ethics and more accountability to their customers.

With any luck it might give a boot in the behind to other industries who have been taking us for eejits for so long (insurance, healthcare, VRT, energy supply to name a few).

Again thanks for everything.

 

[Bronte]

I wish to acknowledge and give credit to both the Financial Services Ombudsman and the Central Bank. Without their decisions and decisiveness on these issues none of us would today be in the position we are in to have received life changing sums of money (granted it is money that we should never paid in the first place).

The ombudsman sometimes gets a hard rap as does the central bank. They sometimes deserve it. In this instance they have given 5900 odd people a fantastic financial boost. Some went through extremely difficult times and thoroughly deserve every penny. Some in particular deserve much more and here is hoping they get it.

I disagree with this post. Here are my reasons.

- The Central Bank were atocious
- the FSO were atrocious
- It's clear you were not affected from the house moves you mentioned so naturally you feel delighted with your 'lotto' win
- For those unlike you this is not the case, they had to fight and fight, losing their homes, their jobs, their sanity and their lives, marriage disputes and break ups, families destroyed
- It wasn't until they were dragged kicking and screaming by the likes of Padraic Kissane in particular and by efforts from AAM/Burgess, reporters like Charlie Weston in the Indo ..... that these state organisations were forced to look to what the banks had done. And to finally address the systematic unfairness of what went on.
- I would never give a state institution like the Central Bank or the FSO credit for doing their job. That's their job. They get well paid for it and they should have done it from the get go, so to me they are just as culpibale as the banks.
- If as you say you got money you shouldn't have had to pay, where it did not impact you, then how do you imagine it was for those where it mattered what food they could put on the table. And you should ask yourself how did this happen, why did the powers that be, who are supposed to protect the consumer, instead, favour the banks. Why was there an issue there. A cosy consensus. Why did it take Padric Kissane never giving up on people and their rights.
- I'm not one bit sorry for the 'poor sods' in AIB who took the phone calls. Why didn't they call out their bosses. Why didn't they feed the media on how the banks systematically went about fooling customers as regards their trackers and interest rates. Where were the bank staff whistleblowers on the meetings that the bankers had when they made the decisions to pull trackers knowing full well what they were at.

Stay with the AIB by all means, but remember you are only a number to them. And the poor AIB sods who were set up for a fall, they were deceived and let down by the Central Bank/government/ombudsman/Bankers/system.

The Central Bank, the Ombudsman and the banks are currently doing what they should have done, or been made to do, so no thanks to them. And people shouldn't be grateful to them for not having to take a High Court case. You shouldn't have to go to the High Court in the first place and no mere mortal in Ireland can afford the High Court, whose fault is it that it is the High court.

If you yourself, as you state, can take this further, then you do a disservice to the 'poor sods' because you don't hold the banks to account.

(I take no exception to you, best of luck with your lotto win)

 

[Bronte]

. I think banking practices will change for the better going forward with increased regulation, mandatory participation in governance and ethics and more accountability to their customers.

AIB, I shall never darken their door. In all my decades, and there have been a few, there has never been a time I thought they or any bank could be trusted. And they, along with the rest have form.

 

[rustbucket]

Bronte. I appreciate your position. You are of course entitled to your opinion as is everyone else. I think I started my post by stating I do not wish to belittle anyone's terrible experiences caused in some or for the most part by the tracker mortgage scandal. I understand it completely and am 100% truly thankful that I was not one of those (I could easily have been).

I was merely trying to point out that we should be thankful that these decisions have now been made and thankful to those involved. It has made a difference. It has made a difference to those who experienced terrible situations and those who were more fortunate to not go through similar. Should it have happened earlier- yes but it should not have been an issue at all in the first place obviously.

I highlighted my own case as an example of those (and there are more) who have been luckier and to give some background context. I was not impacted significantly. I am very aware of how lucky I am to not have been impacted as there were times where it was close.

I don't believe I have any case or any reason to take this further. I have no interest in doing so. I don't believe that by not taking it further that I am doing a disservice to anyone. Likewise I don't criticise anyone for taking it further. Each case is different. Good luck to anyone that does. I hope they succeed.

 

[Bronte]

My bank Ulster bank gave me back 10K. Of my own money. That they had overcharged and discovered it. I don't feel lucky. I feel cheated. I'm not giving a financial institution, who deal in money, credit for giving me back my own money. And I wasn't impacted as I didn't even realise it. That's not the point. It means I can't ever trust them. I also got another couple of cheques relatively recently from them, when I queried one of the refunds, they 'discovered' that they had miscalcuated that as well.

It's incredible to me that a banks can't figure out overcharging.

I've also been to the ombudsman and lost, but I got a cheque. I consulted a barrister on that, said I had a 50/50 chance. So of course there was no way I was going to the High court. If it were now I would. Banks can not be trusted ever. (and I've experience of AIB and BofI too, they are so bad I wil never bank with them.)

 

[Bronte]

Rust bucket perhaps you might want to rethink

Central Bank accused of ‘turning blind eye to misbehaviour’ of financial firms

The Central Bank has not taken any enforcement actions against financial firms for breaches of its key consumer protection regulations in the past four years, with the exception of the tracker probe.

www.independent.ie

Which reminds me, you might have forgotten the battle Burgess had with them over their incorrect figures.

 

[rustbucket]

Read it. Thanks. Pretty uninformative article if im honest.
Doesn’t change my mind.
Never once questioned or forgot Brendan’s work or struggles in this fight.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Hi Bronte

I give my reaction to this report here:

Lack of Central Bank enforcement of Consumer Protection Code

The Central Bank's record on enforcement has come under scrutiny after it emerged that apart from the tracker mortgage controversy, it has not taken a single action over a breach of the Consumer Protection Code in the last four year. This compares to 26 enforcement actions for breaches of the...

askaboutmoney.com