If you have been deemed not impacted, the Statute of Limitations does indeed snooker you.
I can see how that would be the case for a mortgage that has been fully paid off more than six years ago. I can't for the life of me see how it applies to an active contract ie where monthly mortgage payments are currently being made. If someone has a problem with their active mortgage contract today, be it tracker related or otherwise, they take it up with the lender. If the issue can't be resolved they go to the FSO or the courts..
Dazzler
I agree with you that this is the way the Ombudsman and the Court interpret the six year rule.
But this is what the Act says
(5) For the purpose of subsections (3) and (4), conduct that is of a continuing nature is taken to have occurred at the time when it stopped and conduct that consists of a series of acts or omissions is taken to have occurred when the last of those acts or omissions occurred.
Let's say that I have mortgage protection insurance with my lender and it's €100 a month. But since I took it out 10 years ago, they have been charging me €100 twice each month. A pure clerical error.
They could argue that the error happened 10 years ago and therefore was statute barred.
I would argue that as it's still occurring, the 6 year time limit has not started.
So, if I have a contract which says that mortgage rate after the fixed rate period will be ECB +1%.
The fixed rate period ended 10 years ago. But they are charging me the SVR today. Can I not argue, that the conduct complained of is of a continuing nature and so the 6 years doesn't start until they stop charging me the SVR?
It's some years and a previous Ombudsman since I have argued this but I got nowhere.
Brendan
If you were not deemed impacted, you are out of time to complain to the Ombudsman or take a High Court case.
However, they should still make a complaint to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman will decide if he can hear it or not. My understanding is that his default position is that he will hear the complaint. But if the bank objects, then he can go no further.
I understood that the bank's statements apply to those deemed impacted. But maybe the banks are happy enough for all cases, impacted or not, go to the Ombudsman. In fact, I suspect that the different banks will handle this differently.
I must say I had forgotten. Could you please link to the court case where someone was convicted of fraud?
If you have any evidence of fraud, then go to the Garda. If the Central Bank uncovered any evidence, they would have stepped back from the case and handed it to the Garda. Luckily for the victims, they Central Bank found no evidence of fraud.
And by the way, as fraud is a crime, there is no statute of limitations. So if you have evidence of fraud, you are not statute barred. I am not sure of the process, but I think you have to prove the fraud first. And the standard for fraud, as it's a criminal matter, is beyond reasonable doubt.
Brendan
No statue of limitations for fraud, but after having a detailed conversation with a Guard on the fraud squad in Harcourt st in Aug 2016, extremely difficult to prove intent, short of a whistle blower, near impossible & also spoke to ODCE and similar story, burden of proof v high before they will consider a case - both understandable, needs to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and only one chance to do it in each case not to mention the cost of such cases if unsuccessful
Over to you PaschalThis bit is particularly interesting. I was wondering how the 3 year time limit wasn't coming into play.
Deering said the Oireachtas made a legislative change in 2017 known which also introduced a “date of knowledge” limit. This means in addition to the six-year period from the date of the conduct, there is also the possibility of a customer making a complaint within three years of them becoming aware of alleged misconduct.
He said the “sad irony” is that some lenders are using this clause, which was designed to help consumers, to argue against the investigation of these complaints.
Some of the customers involved contacted their banks years ago to say they believed they should be on a tracker mortgage – their banks are now arguing they were aware of the misconduct at this time and could have made a complaint then.
So if someone did not raise the issue at the time because they were not aware of it, they can now make a complaint to the Ombudsman as they are within the three year time limit.
However, if they queried it 8 years ago, they would be out of time now.
Brendan
This bit is particularly interesting. I was wondering how the 3 year time limit wasn't coming into play.
Deering said the Oireachtas made a legislative change in 2017 known which also introduced a “date of knowledge” limit. This means in addition to the six-year period from the date of the conduct, there is also the possibility of a customer making a complaint within three years of them becoming aware of alleged misconduct.
He said the “sad irony” is that some lenders are using this clause, which was designed to help consumers, to argue against the investigation of these complaints.
Some of the customers involved contacted their banks years ago to say they believed they should be on a tracker mortgage – their banks are now arguing they were aware of the misconduct at this time and could have made a complaint then.
So if someone did not raise the issue at the time because they were not aware of it, they can now make a complaint to the Ombudsman as they are within the three year time limit.
However, if they queried it 8 years ago, they would be out of time now.
Brendan
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?