Implications for banks generally of the contradictory Ombudsman's decisions in Ulster Bank case

Interesting discussion but my input would be, based on as I have seen over all banks and thousands of docs, the main issues were
1) original intentions regards tracker were changed when banks hit skid row
2) all documents were reviewed by lenders but from the perspective of the holding bank which flew in the face of Consumer codes
3) very few if any corrected matters from the customer perspective
4) the responses from banks in all complaints I have dealt with did not have one sentence that was pro their customers
5) some of the ambiguous wordings were like a green light to lenders
6) those ambiguous wordings could be read in two or more ways
It was forgotten in many cases that Tracker was a product first the margin dictated the rate
7) no lender saw ecb plummeting
8) only one lender increased margins in existing contracts out of 15 lenders and yet got away with it so far

Just a few of my thoughts
Regards Fspo the process is now way too convoluted and 28 page decisions don’t help their process either
Pádraic

Hi Pádraic

The banks under pressure from the Central Bank restored about 20,000(?) trackers. These people would not have got them back if the Central Bank had not pressurised the banks.

So the remaining cases were genuinely open to dispute. I saw very few clear cut cases going to the Ombudsman.

The exception was probably Ulster Bank who disputed cases all the way with the Ombudsman and settled them just before they were about to lose them. They hoped that the customer would give up and the customer often did.

Brendan

Brendan respectfully I don’t think plaudits should be handed out for the insistence and adherence to Consumer protection codes which became central in the investigation
If banks had adhered to those principles initially it would never have happened