We seem to into unchartered waters here. Wonder has the FSPO the conviction...to go that route.
Has the Central Bank a function?
Update: Ulster Bank wins Court of Appeal case on Tracker mortgages
- Thread starter Brendan Burgess
- Start date
Has the Central Bank a function?
To the Supreme Court?
Court of Appeal
The main function of the Court of Appeal is to hear appeals from the High Court and the Circuit Court.www.citizensinformation.ie
Silence from the FSPO so far?. Wonder is an appeal being contemplated.
Is there merit in effected customers (estimated to be 4,000) writing to FSPO expressing concern and seeking response/update.?
Mightn't that simply swamp them with having to respond to these letters to the detriment of doing useful work with presumably limited resources?
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,967
You might be better employed swamping the politicians and asking them to address the issue.
At present there is absolutely no danger of any organisation or person being swamped!.
As far as I can see I seem to be a lone voice raising questions as to what if anything might or can happen after this most surprising court decision.
Is the FSPO accountable to anybody .? Can he simply refuse to even comment on this decision which totally undermines and overrules his Authority?
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,967
The High Court?
The Court of Appeal?
If you want accountability, then you must be prepared to be disappointed when you don't like the outcome of that accountability.
The Ombudsman upheld the complaint against Ulster Bank.
The Court of Appeal said he was wrong to do so.
Don't blame the Ombudsman.
Brendan
You seem to miss the significance here from the Consumer viewpoint. Yesterday you suggested I contact politicians. ?
I dont want to repeat my previous comments. The outcome of this court decision has enormous implications. Only the Ombudsman can now decide to appeal. The consumer is again powerless and at the mercy of the only potential appeal route left.
Is it satisfactory for the Ombudsman to simply ignore this Court decision?
You seem to miss the significance here from the Consumer viewpoint. Yesterday you suggested I contact politicians. ?
I dont want to repeat my previous comments. The outcome of this court decision has enormous implications. Only the Ombudsman can now decide to appeal. The consumer is again powerless and at the mercy of the only potential appeal route left.
Is it satisfactory for the Ombudsman to simply ignore this Court decision?
Last edited:
Time has moved on and still nothing from the FSPO to explain their position on my case. Still finding it difficult to get my head around it. In 2008 I had a tracker product, which I still hold to this date. Therefore, I would not have been a new customer when asking to move balance back to the tracker, it was there and waiting. Never received anything either verbally or in writing to say a movement of balance to a fixed rate was permanent and could not be reversed. But apparently I’m supposed to know this somehow.
Perhaps I am looking at this too simplistically?
Perhaps I am looking at this too simplistically?
Hi folks,
It looks like the FSPO deliberations regarding the court of appeal decision is over. It is being accepted by the ombudsman for better or for worse. I am disappointed as it is another victory for the banks and bank customers in this instance have been unfairly treated, in my view.
It also confirms that the ombudsman has now no teeth and that banks can now challenge his decisions in the courts. Who stands up for the consumer?
Ulster Bank's exposure on this if it had went against them must have been huge. I have no way of quantifying this other than assuming this is the case. Plus I am sure there are plenty of UB customers blissfully unaware that there mortgage may have been impacted by this.
Plus ca change.....
It looks like the FSPO deliberations regarding the court of appeal decision is over. It is being accepted by the ombudsman for better or for worse. I am disappointed as it is another victory for the banks and bank customers in this instance have been unfairly treated, in my view.
It also confirms that the ombudsman has now no teeth and that banks can now challenge his decisions in the courts. Who stands up for the consumer?
Ulster Bank's exposure on this if it had went against them must have been huge. I have no way of quantifying this other than assuming this is the case. Plus I am sure there are plenty of UB customers blissfully unaware that there mortgage may have been impacted by this.
Plus ca change.....
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,967
The ombudsman would have taken legal advice on the possibility of appealing and the likelihood of winning.
The point of the court of appeal was not to insert another layer but to finalise things quicker.
I don’t like the court of appeal’s decision but the best strategy now is to change the law.
The point of the court of appeal was not to insert another layer but to finalise things quicker.
I don’t like the court of appeal’s decision but the best strategy now is to change the law.
