Hi Megafan
That is an interesting idea.
Why would they not say that in the letter though?
The Ombudsman was happy enough to tell people that he was putting their cases on hold pending the outcome of the Central Bank review.
The Appeals Panel should do the same.
Brendan
Hi Brendan
Well, the only reason I say it is because why drag it out to the level they have. The wording is very specific in the letter in that the appeal is still receiving attention, but if all were captured under the same rationale under the prevailing rate, then all could be dismissed quickly under the same response. From the bank's perspective that would then put the onus on the people appealing to go to next stages. That would be the brazen thing to do, which would suit the bank but we are rolling from month to month now.
It could be a resource issue maybe but again my first point would hold. If we ultimately get the same response as everyone else has, then what would the point be in delaying to the extent they have. It is just odd, or maybe it is just a timing anomaly.
I think the appeals letters to the panel that you gave such great direction on raised questions that were not easily dismissed without due consideration by the bank, especially around consumer law.
For ourselves personally, our appeal was slightly different in that the mortgage was signed slightly after the withdrawal of the tracker rate (the mortgage process started before the tracker rate was withdrawn), though the T&C's included the standard 3.2 disclosure and 3.6 (I always thought 3.6 doubled down on 3.2).
If you asked the question to AIB, how can you say one thing about the prevailing rate and yet put a legally binding term into an agreement post the withdrawal? I don't know how they would answer that question without bluffing. Alternatively, you could ask them why did you put those terms in full stop? How could they answer either of those questions sincerely. Mea Culpa? I think a legally binding condition is just that. You could also argue that the left hand in AIB did not know what the right hand was doing and maybe they actually thought they could ride it out and re-introduce trackers.
That is why I am curious as to the Ombudsman findings. On the surface, surely the consumer is the one impacted but in this case the CBI in effect absolutely bended the knee to AIB on the prevailing rate, cause whatever way you look at it, AIB over egged the cake noting crazy rates around 7.9% or whatever it was. The government put the shareholder over the consumer, will the Ombudsman be the honest broker to cut through it all?
In the last year, the refunds on personal loans was a lot greater than AIB let on, saying the average amount was in the '00's or less but still some people got '000's into their account without any forewarning (though it was good news for the consumer, totally not on peoples radar).
That is why I am curious more so than hopeful on the whole thing.
Alternatively, should the letter of rejection turn up in the meantime, it will be interesting to see what all the extra attention our appeal got brought to the table..