Why is the F.S.O. appealing the Millar case ?

To Brendan,

exactly, if a term in a contract is deemed not to be clear, the contra proferentum rule applies,( literally means against the drafter ) so in this instance, whatever was best advantage to the consumer would prevail, ie the Millars would win their argument to the best advantage to them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Most of the institutions that pay the levy were not bailed out, and the bailout happened years ago at this stage. Your comment about taxpayers' money was a red herring; the FSO has as much right to appeal as anyone else, and indeed as the Millars had to appeal its original decision
 
Barneyg, the taxpayer paid 58 million euro to plug the financial shortfall in Irish financial regulation in 2014, period. Look it up and come back to me with some facts disputing same. So that means the financial institutions are not paying the levies as required, fact.
You do not seem to comprehend what I am saying, the Millars took a lay litigant claim. ( a claim where they do not employ legal professionals ) The appeal by the FSO to the new Appeals Court will cost the taxpayer a lot of money, as the FSO will employ senior and junior counsels to present their case. They charge 1000's of euro per day. On the other side of the appeal there will be Donna and Robert Millar, ordinary people, and at the end of it all who will end up paying the massive legal bill, take a guess?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
..............
Seems to hang on {response to market conditions}.
If so Millars stay as winners, am with Fin on this and bow to posters greater knowledge.
I do not think Danske are worried about Millars but how many more are waiting.
If Danske lose = Supreme Court or must it stop at new Appeals Court?

Barneyg.
Yes FSO is funded by Banks ! not a sensible funding method.
With the best will in the world people do not bite the feeding hand!
 
barneyg said:
Also, my understanding is that the FSO is funded by a levy on financial providers, rather than receiving money from the taxpayer.
Click to expand...

Fin Crusader said:
The taxpayer had to bail out financial regulatory bodies to the sum of 58 million last year, guess the financial institutions are not paying the levy! See Irish Times article 30/12/2014.
Click to expand...

See attached accounts from the FSO report for 201. He spent €5.4m and recovered it in full from the financial institutions, as far as I can make out.

Fin Crusader, as far as I can see, your figure of €58m relates to the Central Bank and not the Financial Services Ombudsman, which is a separate body.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/...to-plug-58m-hole-in-regulatory-bill-1.2051145

Brendan
 

Attachments

  • 2013 accounts.pdf
    54.1 KB · Views: 432
Last edited:
Gerry, you have hit the nail on the head, Danske bank will invest serious money in this case. Failure is not an option for them, there will be the usual semantics, smoke and mirrors etc, but in the end the fact is, the term, " in response to market condition" is not a term of art, it is in fact an ambiguous term.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Brendan, I believe the figure encompasses all financial regulatory bodies within the state, plus, the other, in the FSO income figures, although a relatively small figure, is probably from the governments central fund ie the taxpayer. If you look up the FSO funding requirments for 2014, you will see a shortfall of 352,308 euro. I wonder who plugged this shortfall ?

Brendan, every credit institution must pay the FSO €0.1763 per customer as a levy. ( si 137/2014 refers )The bank's simply adds this cost into every customers account.


To Gerry,

If Danske bank lose in the appeals court, then I believe the next stop is Europe, but only if the bank can find a possible breach in European legislation, which they I believe they cannot. The corollary of this argument is that if the Millars lose this case in the Appeals court they can go to the European court, as they can make a case that the term in the variable rate clause of their mortgage agreement is unfair, and thus is a breach of the unfair terms in contract legislation, which of course is European legislation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Is your argument that the FSO should never appeal a decision of the High Court? That would put it in a somewhat invidious position
 
Fin

Your argument seems to be "The taxpayer is bailing out the Financial Services Ombudsman, so they should not appeal High Court decisions"

The total cost of the Ombudsman in 2013 was €5.4m, of which €1m was in legal fees. This is by no means excessive.

The Ombudsman must make the decision on whether to appeal a case or not, based on the merits of the case, and not the cost of legal fees.

Brendan
 
Barneyg,

the High court has ruled on the matter, that appears to be the matter settled in a great number of instances in which the FSO is involved, but for some reason not so in this particular case. Let the bank appeal the decision, which they are entitled to do, if they wish to, as it has huge financial implications for that particular bank. In the ( unlikely ) event that the High Court decision is overturned then so be it, but at present the FSO cannot decide on like matters until this case has been heard in the appeals court. Say for example, the case is overturned in the Appeals Court and the Millars subsequently appeal the decision to the European Court of Justice, as they believe the variable rate term is an unfair term as set down in European legislation (si 27/1995 refers). Then the FSO cannot make a decision on any like matters coming before it, until this case has been heard by the ECJ. That could take a very long time, due process works both ways.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
...................................
Fin ,
From consumer view (you have hit it on the head) !
Only the Danskes and the Rich can afford in money and time to wait.
Mr Joe Soap finally gets worn down , whilst believing in the fairy godmother! of equity.
Fin
 
Brendan, the FSO has it's own in house legal team, the legal costs you quote of 1 million euro, is the amount paid to external legal professionals only. The FSO's internal wage bill is just above 2.1million euro, and FSO legal fees another 1,235,000 euro on top of that
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gerry,
That what the bank is hoping for in this case.
 
Brut force (by way of financial muscle) is being used to drive citizens attempts at accessing justice into the ground. There was another decision recently (ref. offset mortgages) which was taken by people to the FSOB. The decision was a fudge - and it appears that many of the complainants were not totally happy with the decision. They had 21 days to go to the High Court. Nobody can afford those sort of costs.
<<Post edited at Brendan's request - as was veering off topic - into the discussion of issues with both the integrity and cost of legal services in Ireland generally - my apologies>>
 
Last edited:
I hope the Millars also take action against Danske bank for overcharging on the variable rate home loans between feb 11th 2009 and nov 11th 2011, they have two weeks left to instigate legal proceedings.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
thank you very much to all the contributors, especially Fin Crusader, I will start proceedings against Danske bank immediately.
 
The following comment could probably go under a number of different threads, but I think it sits well under this discussion, especially in light of yesterday's events re PTSB vs the Ombudsman and the subsequent involvement of the Central Bank.

Some posters on other threads have commented that they had identical cases to those in the ruling but the Ombudsman found against them. Does this not raise significant issues for the operation of the FSO, in that the FSO might rightly be considered to not have acted fairly in these cases? (there is another thread relating to a high court case where the FSO was reminded to act fairly - think it was at the end of 2014.)

Aside from from the inaccessibility of the appeals process for the majority of complainants, I find it incomprehensible that this publicly funded organisation has no internal review process or apparent ability to identify and act upon cases where, even using their strictly legalistic approach, the evidence presented about the bank ( be it documentation, wording etc etc) has been interpreted in a different manner in individual cases.
 
Goodness me what is a collateral contract? I always understood what you sign is your contract and that's that, and you cannot later rely on brochures or advertising, most of which have legal disclaimers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register