Hi Brian
Which bit is confusing you?
The Ombudsman said that people with the "prevailing rate" clause should have been offered trackers.
He said that he could not set the rate retrospectively so felt that 12% capital write down was fair.
The Central Bank intervened.
They said
"On 10 October 2008, you should have offered these people trackers at the then prevailing rate.
Had you made the decision then to increase the rate to 10%, it would have taken you 12 weeks to implement that decision.
So anyone coming off the fixed rate in that 12 weeks would have been on the then existing tracker margin.
Give them that margin."
This is an astonishing decision. If AIB had wanted to increase the rate to 10%, they could have done so within a matter of days not 12 weeks.
So, no, I don't think there is any point in challenging it.
Of course, you are still getting the 12% write down and interest refund on that.
Brendan