I got a reply from AIB today.
Quick background
I had 3 properties - all put into voluntary sale. 2 properties were overcharged originally for which i received compensation The 3rd property was part of the [prevailing rate cohort. (Although I would argue the 3rd was impacted, albeit not directly, due to the domino effect of the other 2).
I had sold the property at this stage so received 12% lump sum last year.
In light of the the ombudsman's decision and given the domino impact of the other 2 properties being overcharged as they were, I went back to AIB and asked them to get onto KPMG (who did the original calculations) and ask then to do a full reassessment of the entire portfolio as a whole to see if the 3rd property was in fact affordable had none of these overcharging's occurred.
To be clear - I wasn't demanding an extra payment. I was requesting that the full consequences of the overcharging be determined to see if it was causal to sale to this 3rd and final property. My argument being if we do not investigate then we cannot know the full consequence,
AIB replied this morning saying they refuse to get KPMG to do an affordability calculation on this 3rd and final property because
1. It is not a refund based on us applying a lower interest rate retrospectively to your accounts
2. Furthermore, these payments have been made outside of the remit of the central banks Tracker Mortgage Examination(TME) framework. As such, affordability assessment is not required.
My view on the above points is:
1. IF the mortgage had been 12% lower (which the ombudsman seems to state) then my payments would also have been lower. They can dress it up any way they want but i was paying them more money than i should have been.
2. This may technically be true. But if the impact is it reduced my affordability to retain the property at the time, then effectively it is a route to get this 3rd property reassessed under the original TME.
What are other peoples views on their arguments above?
@Brendan Burgess Technically what was the ombudsman's decision? Can we legitimately argue that had AIB behaved correctly day opne, that interest rate payments at the time would have been 12% lower?
My next step is to go to the tracker panel to ask them to intervene to get AIB to get onto KPMG and do a recalculation of affordability on this 3rd property.
Quick background
I had 3 properties - all put into voluntary sale. 2 properties were overcharged originally for which i received compensation The 3rd property was part of the [prevailing rate cohort. (Although I would argue the 3rd was impacted, albeit not directly, due to the domino effect of the other 2).
I had sold the property at this stage so received 12% lump sum last year.
In light of the the ombudsman's decision and given the domino impact of the other 2 properties being overcharged as they were, I went back to AIB and asked them to get onto KPMG (who did the original calculations) and ask then to do a full reassessment of the entire portfolio as a whole to see if the 3rd property was in fact affordable had none of these overcharging's occurred.
To be clear - I wasn't demanding an extra payment. I was requesting that the full consequences of the overcharging be determined to see if it was causal to sale to this 3rd and final property. My argument being if we do not investigate then we cannot know the full consequence,
AIB replied this morning saying they refuse to get KPMG to do an affordability calculation on this 3rd and final property because
1. It is not a refund based on us applying a lower interest rate retrospectively to your accounts
2. Furthermore, these payments have been made outside of the remit of the central banks Tracker Mortgage Examination(TME) framework. As such, affordability assessment is not required.
My view on the above points is:
1. IF the mortgage had been 12% lower (which the ombudsman seems to state) then my payments would also have been lower. They can dress it up any way they want but i was paying them more money than i should have been.
2. This may technically be true. But if the impact is it reduced my affordability to retain the property at the time, then effectively it is a route to get this 3rd property reassessed under the original TME.
What are other peoples views on their arguments above?
@Brendan Burgess Technically what was the ombudsman's decision? Can we legitimately argue that had AIB behaved correctly day opne, that interest rate payments at the time would have been 12% lower?
My next step is to go to the tracker panel to ask them to intervene to get AIB to get onto KPMG and do a recalculation of affordability on this 3rd property.
Last edited: