AIB When did the Central Bank tell AIB to give 300 Prevailing Rate customers trackers?

Megafan

Registered User
Messages
128
Why are these guys getting trackers?

The Central Bank insisted that had AIB complied with the terms of their contract, they would have increased the tracker rate instead of withdrawing it in October 2008. However, based on the experience of previous changes to tracker rates, it would have taken AIB 12 weeks to implement that change.

So the Central Bank insisted that AIB give all those customers the tracker rate which would have existed during that 12 week period


Brendan

Thanks for the updates Brendan.

Just re the above, do you know if the CBI reached the above conclusion pre or post the FSPO decision?

It is a fascinating conclusion in that they retrospectively corrected AIB's error in effect (and maybe it is a fair conclusion to draw), there must have been a great temptation on AIB's part to stand behind the 12 week implementation only and let the rest of the cohort sing. Fair play for the 300, an amazing result for those people, and still a brilliant one for the rest of us given that CBI interpretation above.

(not to mention it might be an insight into why the FSPO didn't go the whole way and award tracker to Karen).
 
Last edited:
After the FSPO decision.

Brendan
That is just fascinating.

I can understand why the CBI would have come to this decision. It is a reasonable assumption to make because AIB made two mistakes (withdrawing trackers and leaving the clause in the agreements) and there were severe impacts all be it 12 years later that were never intended.

All fair enough but...if we go back to appeals to the Tracker Panel, based on your outlines and some other very good posters on the forum, we put in a lot of consumer rights data where by such things under law would come down on the side of the consumer. You could possibly argue that the CBI have intervened 12 years too late to protect the bank from the impact of full tracker redress for the prevailing rate cohort.

Maybe, I just don't know the legal ramifications or basis where the CBI can step in to determine what AIB did in the past was wrong when it impacts on the present so dramatically for 5,600 people? You know I have consistently said the FSPO decision has been a brilliant one, it just seems like this muddies the water. To me, and I am no expert in any of this.

It seems like everyone might have been blindsided by the FSPO decision.
 
Last edited:
where the CBI can step in to determine what AIB did in the past was wrong

I think that you are reading too much into this.

1) The Central Bank does not find that a bank is right or wrong. That is a decision for the Ombudsman or the courts.

2) The Ombudsman made a decision that AIB should have offered their customers trackers when the fixed rate ended.

3) The Central Bank followed this logical conclusion as follows:
"OK, we don't know what the tracker margin would have been after 5 January 2009. We know what it would have been up to 5 January 2009."

Brendan
 
I think that you are reading too much into this.

I would maybe say that it is something that is really significant more so in that a couple of years back, this was wide open, there was one side and the other, and now we are at the stage where the CBI have stepped in and set parameters so that 300 of the cohort can get trackers (I am delighted for each of those people) and the rest of us can count our blessings for lots of reasons. That is why I think the CBI intervention is huge in terms of how direct it is.

If anyone wants to go down the courts route to see if there was a tracker out there, it really narrows the target, and that is no bad thing. It is fascinating though all the moves etc..
 
Last edited:
Is the CBI letter to AIB I’m relation to 12 week period available anywhere?
I am going through appeals process and AIB are saying that the prevailing rate changed on the 20th October
Thank you
 
Back
Top