Success! Appealed FSO decision to High Court; FSO agreed not to challenge appeal, the day before .

laure said:
Hi All,
Well a year on and we won!!!!!!!
We finally got our oral hearing from the FSO after appealing their first decision to the high court.
Before it went to he high court ( The day before to be precise) , the FSO offered to reconsider the file and subsequently gave us a date for an oral hearing.
On the day of the oral hearing ,as we were ready to enter and give our statements , the representatives of BOI asked if we could have a meeting as they wanted to settle the case before any oral hearing.
We had nothing to lose listening to them and we always always kept the communication's lines opened with BOI anyway so we agreed and went to another room.
As my husband and I sat down ( couldn't afford a solicitor anymore so we were representing ourselves ) BOI offered a full settlement by writing off the loan all together and end any further complaint through the FSO or through the court.
I won't lie and saying that we were expecting this and it took us a few minutes to realise that after 7 hard years of fighting we had finally won more than we were asking for !
So for everybody out there keep fighting !
Thank you all for your comments help and just reading my post .
laure.
Click to expand...

Hi Laure,
Well done and I've got to say much respect is deserved to you and your husband for going all the way, with so much at stake if costs were awarded against you.

I wish I had the same courage, but the system is designed in such away that you can't appeal the FSO's decision without the risk of financial ruin.

Well done again.
 
Hi Laure - that is fantastic news. Well done and thanks for taking the time to update us on the outcome. I have edited the thread title to reflect the outcome.


Astonishing to get it written off, whereas you would have been quite happy to have the €30k added to your mortgage.

I am a bit confused about the timeline here. Could you fill in some of the dates for us? The reason they are important is that it tells us how long it takes to process a complaint like this. It also tells us whether the decision not to object to the request for an oral hearing was under Bill Prasifka or under the new FSO, who seems more pragmatic.

2009 - €30 loan granted
Complained to FSO
FSO rejected complaint without an oral hearing.

2015(?) High Court case due for hearing
FSO agreed to have an oral hearing.

late 2016 - Oral hearing due

Bank wrote off loan.

Brendan
 
Last edited:
And what is the story on legal costs?

Did you have to pay your solicitor and barrister up front for the challenge to the FSO's decision?

How much? And did the the FSO pay your costs?

Brendan
 
Just wondering.

Could it be that BOI were afraid that since loan was signed by Husband only , that to have that poor practice highlighted in Court was too dangerous .
I think quite a few of us know cases were the signor was not the recipient of the loan .
So by paying up, BOI avoids other (worms?)
 
Wow Laure you are just fantastic and such an inspiration. Well done you.

I have nothing but contempt for the FO and the bank. Disgusting behavior.

For anybody else, now you see how they fold like a pack of cards if you put it up to them. But not many people have the stomach for this. Laure is lucky in one respect, timing is excellent as there is a turnarond in view of the FO's previous actions, and the banks of course. It's gone from everything stacked in their favour against the customers.
 
BB does the FO ever pay your legal costs?

Also I presume Laure signed a confidentiality agreement. If by any chance she didn't I'd love it it were in mainstream media.

This is a great story. Delighted I came onto AAM today.
 
Some replies seem to think that the FSO changed its mind before the High Court, but from my reading it was BOI who made a settlement offer. Perhaps you could clarify.
 
Laure, I am seriously impressed. Well played.

I too would be interested to know what happened in relation to legal costs. I am not asking for numbers but just to know what costs were covered. If you cannot answer for confidentiality reasons that is fine.

I had a minor (in quantitative terms) issue with an insurer. I referred it to the FSOB who found against me. I felt that the decision was poor and worth appealing on qualitative grounds. However, the prospect of a High Court case ruled out immediately any question of appeal.

My understanding of what would have happened is this ;
  1. You present a complaint to the FSOB against the financial institution.
  2. If the FSOB finds against you that is a decision which is legally binding on both the complainant and the institution. There are no legal costs incurred up to this point so your only loss is your time.
  3. If the complainant appeals it has to be to the High Court by way of a Notice of Motion. If you proceed that way I think that both the FSOB and the institution must both be notice parties to the proceedings. Therefore, the appealing complainant effectively becomes the plaintiff in a High Court action against 2 defendants both of whom may seek orders for costs if the complainant loses.
AFAIK either party to the original FSOB ruling has the right to appeal. So, a complainant who wins via the FSOB might find themselves in the High Court as a defendant with it's associated financial risks if the financial institution decides to appeal.

IMHO the appeal option is a definite deterrent to any individual who might want to overturn a FSOB ruling. A fortiori, Laure's success was a significant win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top