High Court upholds PTSB's challenge to Ombudsman's decision on tracker mortgages

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hope64 I have a very similar story to you which I posted at the start of the thread. I also have a case with the Ombudsman and here is what has happened so far:

1. Contact Ombudsman, told to get final letter from PTSB
2. After much stalling & delay from PTSB & warning letter from Ombudsman to PTSB finally got a final letter from PTSB. In it they state that I had being told verbally I would get my tracker back when I entered fixed so because of that I knew I was entitled to tracker when I broke out of fixed. However, I broke out of fixed because at the time PTSB said that a verbal agreement was not binding and had no standing! So they switch it to suit themselves.
3. Ombudsman issued letter to PTSB and us asking for mediation, we agreed but PTSB did not.
4. Got letter from Ombudsman to say they will investigate our case now but because of back log it will be about 20 weeks before they can start.

So it is a long road, but I will follow this through until the end because I feel so ripped off by PTSB.

What stage is your case at?
 
hi kaza. permanent tsb did reply to our complaint and they claim that they would never advise to come out of a fixed rate early went on and on in the letter how we signed all the documentation to switch but only gave us a few lines reguarding our complaint that we were never told about loosing the right to our tracker and how we were misled an d misinformed by this staff member. we have waited our 20wks with ombudsman and investigation has commenced. basically he has sent in a letter asking various questions to ptsb about our case. they have 20 days to respond to him, he will then ask us to reply to their response within 10working days and finally they will have 5 days to respond to what we have said. so im guessing it will be wrapped up in about 6 weeks time. im hoping the ombudsman realises the extent that permanent tsb misled there customers over trackers! am soooo angry with them. best of look with ure case. how long have you been waiting?
 
Firstly best of luck with your cases!
Long time lurker, but want to share my experience to date with the ombudsman.
I opened a case back in Feb 2011 on very similar grounds to the previous poster. Basicaly I was on a fixed rate, called PTSB to discuss options (not being aware I had the option of a tracker at expriry of fixed term). As variable rate was lower at the time, I wanted to see what my options were. They ran through my monthly payments and what they would be if I went to variable. Basically was advised that repayment would be much lower if I went on variable and requested to break fixed rate. I did and was delighted at the reduction in payments.....
Subsequently found my original docs and saw that I was entitled to go onto tracker at the end of the 2 year fixed term (had <6 months remaining) and tracker was 1% above ECB...Extremely shoddy on my part, but the documents were mislaid at the time and I wasnt aware that I had that tracker clause.
Moving on a few years to when I discovered the docs, I rang the bank incensed that they neglected to inform me that i had a tracker at the end of the fixed rate and they efectively incentivised me moving to variable by rescinding break out fee from the fixed term...They effectively said tough luck..
Went to the ombudsman last Feb and followed the same process as outlined by the previous poster. Replied to several questions as did the lender. No mediation was taken up. Lender in their responses said they had no obligation to disclose the fact that I had a tracker option and they denied in any way advising me to move to variable. The case moved to investigation and advice was 20 weeks or so to judgement.
Ombudsman came back to me sometime in November with a letter saying that they had adjudicated on several cases similar to mine, but the lender had appealed. The wished to wait until high court rulings were delivered and reviewed until deciding on how to proceed with my case.
Very fair and professional dealings with the ombudsman so far and they advised that it would be some time after Christmas before they would be in a position to advise further.
From reviewing high court cases I think that they are referring to the case where PTSB brought the ombudsmans decision in a similar case to the high court based on the ombudsmans decision that the lender had a fiduciary obligation to the lender. The high court ruled that the lender had no such obligation. However, the judge inferred that there may be a case under the consumer protection code (where the lender should act in the best interest of the customer) that should be reviewed.
I'm not sure if that has been revisited at this stage in the high court but am aware of other cases which are on hold based on review of the ombudsman of this.

Sorry for the ramble, but wanted to share my experienc. I'm optimistic that the ombudsman is pursuing the case to the letter of the law. Hopefully regardess of fiduciary responsibility, the high court and ombudsman will recognise that sharp practice has been at play and there was scant regard for the best interest of the consumer. Im thinking that the delay is due to the fact that the ombudsman is reframing some of its cases in that new light.

Good luck and we'll fight the good fight. Best of luck to you all
 
exact same situation as you Kaza. My initial response from the ombudsman was in Feb 2011 and I recently got a letter stating that the pertinent cases were due in the high court on June 12th. Based on that outcome, my case would move to investigation.
Long road, but hopefully one with a bebficial outcome.

As to whether the PTSB will have the stomach to fight these cases if they are moving the tracker book to the bad bank...I think they will still fight as in my case they have a very profitable SVR if the ombudsman sides with them. I'm not in arrears and while paying through the nose, I'm managing to meet the extortionate (not as extortionate as the erstwhile 6.19%) SVR payment rates.
Plus if they were to rescind their status and revert me to tracker as they rightfully should they will be on the hook for compensation for the overpayments (the difference between the correct tracker payments and the inflated SVR payments for almost 5 years, so maybe > 20K). Small potatoes to them, but multiply that out for the thousands of others who will pursue this precedent.

So I dont think the premise of moving the tracker book to IBRC or wherever is diluting the appetite of the predatory PTSB in these cases..but thats just my opinion. I really cant see them capitulating.

Either way, the Ombudsman will have to decide based on this case on June 12..Fingers crossed and good luck!
 
Case was heard and judgement was reserved. Ruling will be delivered by end of July... Sorry , not more details, but at least its still out there
 
I am still confused about what ruling is due tomorrow.

The High Court upheld PTSB's challenge and told the Ombudsman to review the case again.

Has the Ombudsman appealed this to the Supreme Court?

We are expecting a ruling tomorrow but whose ruling is it?
 
Hi Brendan,

First time post but have been watching this particular thread with a great deal of interest as I also have a case pending with the FSO pending on the result of this case.

A couple of weeks back FSO sent out letters to people in a similar issue stating that this case was being re-appealed through the High Court. I believe the case was heard by the High Court in June and the Judge expected to deliver a verdict by end of July.

Hope this clears up your question.
 
Also I have a question to all people looking at this thread with a similar on-going case. When you decided to break from the Fixed to a Variable rate did you have to pay an "exit fee"?

In some cases I can see that people did not have to pay an exit fee and yet others did. I raised this in my initial complaint to PTSB and was told that they had actually made a mistake and that I actually only covered 10% of what the real cost for breaking out should have been.

From my basic knowledge of contracts I assumed that if all the terms and conditions had not been met correctly by both parties then anything subsequently is null and void. Is this a simplistic view of the world?? Since PTSB admitted to making a mistake my argument is that my original contract should still be in place.
 
smithcat said:
A couple of weeks back FSO sent out letters to people in a similar issue stating that this case was being re-appealed through the High Court.
Click to expand...

Thanks cat

Would you have the letter to hand. What was the actual wording?

A High Court decision can be appealed to the Supreme Court.

I wasn't aware that something could be "re-appealed".
 
Sorry I have read the letter again from the ombudsman and my earlier post is incorrect. The letter states...
"I write to advise you that a number of appeals to the High Court by PTSB, arising out of Findings previously made by the Financial Service Ombudsman, we're heard before the High Court on 12-14 June 2012...intention to deliver judgement prior to the end of July 2012."
 
Thanks for the clarification.

I wonder why I can't find any information about these High Court cases online?

Brendan
 
Ditto,
the only information I am receiving on this is letters from the ombudsman.y
Very frustrating there is no online record.

Apparantly the ruling was on the 19th, ?? but Im none the wiser until I get a letter...

waiting.....
 
I cannot find the ruling either but it was in the diary for the 19th

IN COURT 26
MR JUSTICE HOGAN
AT 10.45 O'CLOCK
2011 253 MCA IRISH LIFE & PERMANENT PLC T/A PERMANENT TSB -V- FINANCIAL SERVICES
2011 234 MCA IRISH LIFE AND PERMANENT PLC T/A PERMANENT TSB -V- FINANCIAL SERVICES
2011 264 MCA IRISH LIFE & PERMANENT PLC T/A PERMANENT TSB -V- FINANCIAL SERVICES
2011 273 MCA PERMANENT TSB -V- FINANCIAL SERVICES OMBUDSMAN

Unless it was re-scheduled.
 
I was wondering if you rang the High Court with the codes above and asked for an update on the ruling would they give it? Surely they'd have to because it's public?
 
Looks like it was put back to 31/7/2012 - Tomorrow

I am nervous now!!!!!

MR JUSTICE HOGAN
2000 14839 P O SULLIVAN -V- ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BOARD 1045
2011 234 MCA IRISH LIFE AND PERMANENT PLC T/A PERMANENT TSB -V- FINANCIAL SERVICES 1045
2011 1645 S WESTPARK INVESTMENT LIMITED & ANOR -V- LEISURE WORLD LIMITED & ANOR 1045
2011 273 MCA PERMANENT TSB -V- FINANCIAL SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 1045
2012 478 JR A & ANOR -V- MJE & ORS 1045
2011 264 MCA IRISH LIFE & PERMANENT PLC T/A PERMANENT TSB -V- FINANCIAL SERVICES 1045
2011 253 MCA IRISH LIFE & PERMANENT PLC T/A PERMANENT TSB -V- FINANCIAL SERVICES 1045
 
Judgement was given this morning

IN COURT 26
MR JUSTICE HOGAN
AT 10.45 O'CLOCK
JUDGMENT

Should have the judgement uploaded tomorrow on courts.ie - I could not make it in today to hear.
 
In one case, where the customer appealed the Ombudsman's decision in favour of PTSB, the High Court upheld the Ombudsman's decision that PTSB were right to kick a borrower off interest only after three years as it was in the contract. Summarised here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register