My complaint to RTE about the programme on Life Loans

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
52,119
Note: The first two posts are very long. But it's necessary.

I have today sent this email to RTE.

To: Lisa Marie-Berry , Producer LiveLine

by email to: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]



From: Brendan Burgess

2nd February 2021

Hi Lisa-Marie

I am very deeply concerned that the catalogue of errors and misrepresentations on the programmes on Wednesday and Thursday will do enormous damage to consumers and you need to correct the errors and the record promptly.

There is nothing at all wrong with lifetime mortgages. With an aging population and declining pensions, there is a huge societal need for these products. In the UK there are at least 13 lenders providing them, including such well-known names as Scottish Widows, Canada Life, Nationwide Building Society, Aviva and Legal & General. During 2020, over 40,000 elderly people drew down these lifetime mortgages with an average of about £100k each. The interest rates in the UK are much lower because of all the competition.

Your programme has set back the development of this necessary product in Ireland as it would deter any lender from entering the market because of the irrational abuse that they would get from Joe Duffy.

Furthermore, people who already have these loans will be frightened that they have been sold a product they do not understand and that they will lose their home.

People who could benefit from taking out a life loan now will be discouraged from doing so by your horror stories.

I do appreciate that it is a live programme, and you don’t have the luxury of checking everything in the same way that the print media has. But when you broadcast such a long list of errors, you have a duty to your listeners to correct the record.

I have drafted a suggested statement for Joe to read out on the programme. It’s a very long statement, but that is necessary because the programmes lasted for 2 ½ hours and the list of errors and unfair comments is very long.

Give me a call at any time to discuss.

Brendan
 
Last edited:
Suggested statement

We covered the issue of Life Loans from Bank of Ireland on Wednesday and Thursday last.

As this is a live programme, we don’t have the luxury of being able to check the validity of what the callers are saying.

But we are committed to being fair and transparent on this programme and where wrong information is given out, we like to correct the record. It seems that a lot of our listeners completely misunderstood the Life Loan and we understand that other people who have these life loans were very frightened by what they heard. And we probably frightened off people who were thinking of taking one out now from doing so.

There is nothing at all wrong with lifetime mortgages. With an aging population and declining pensions, there is a huge societal need for these products. In the UK there are at least 13 lenders providing them, including such well known names as Scottish Widows, Canada Life, Nationwide Building Society, Aviva and Legal & General. During 2020, over 40,000 elderly people drew down these lifetime mortgages with an average of about £100k each. With all this competition, the interest rates in the UK are much lower because of all the competition.



Since Thursday, we have checked out what our callers said and must say that the programme and the callers completely misrepresented what the Life Loan is.

Some callers used completely inappropriate terms and I should have stopped them. These lenders are not predatory, this lending is not usury, they are not vulture funds or loan sharks, the people are not despicable, the rates are not extortionate – they might be high, but they are not out of line with the market.

  • Many people gave the impression that they didn’t understand the way in which the amount borrowed would rise so quickly. That no one told them it was compound interest. They said that the product was mis-sold.
Well, we got a copy of the brochure that customers got and, fair play to Bank of Ireland, it could not have been any clearer. It shows up front how much would be owed at the end of each year. How anyone can say now, that they did not realise how much would be due after 15 years, is beyond me.

And the letter of offer showed the projected balance at the end of 5 years, 10 years and 15 years and gave the total interest that would be paid.

And every year, they got a clear statement saying how much the loan had increased by over the past year.

  • Some people gave the impression that they went into the bank and were pressurised into taking out a life loan without any advice. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let me quote from the brochure.
Do I need independent financial advice?

We would always recommend a customer obtains independent financial advice to ensure that they understand both the terms and conditions and the drawbacks associated with Life Loan.

Do I need a solicitor?

Yes. It is a condition of the loan that all borrowers obtain independent legal advice. You may also wish to involve your family or anyone else likely to be affected by your decision.

  • It was suggested by many callers that they did not know the downsides.
Again, the brochure is very clear. It’s there in big writing and not small print.

Are there any drawbacks to a Life Loan?

• The Life Loan must be repaid in the circumstances set out on page 5, the three principal events being:- once you either sell your home, leave your home for a period of six months or more, or you die

• As you would expect, the Life Loan will reduce the value of your estate. As a result your next-of-kin will receive less inheritance than they would have had you not realised equity from your home

• Customers in receipt of a non contributory pension and who leave the proceeds of their Life Loan on deposit to supplement their income may erode their entitlement to their non contributory pension. In these circumstances, we would recommend customers seek independent financial advice and clarify their entitlement with the Department of Family and Social Affairs

• As no repayments are made during the term of the Life Loan, a significant proportion of the amount to be repaid may comprise of interest


  • I repeatedly said that people didn’t realise it was a mortgage.
On reflection, I should not have said that. Every aspect of it was clear that the loan was secured on the home. It was clear in the brochure. It should have been clear in the letter of offer. And just in case it wasn’t clear then the solicitor would have pointed it out.

  • A lot of people described the interest rate of 6.9% as penal, as extortionate and predatory.
With interest rates so low at the moment, these interest rates may look high in retrospect. But at the time, mortgage rates for ordinary mortgages were much higher than they are now. For example, back in 2004 a 10 year fixed rate was 5.35%. Fixed rates are higher the longer the rate is fixed for. And as there were no repayments at all until the end, the rate would be higher again. So yes, 6.9% was high, but it was wrong for callers to call it penal or extortionate.

The very first caller on the issue was Ann. She remembered that when she bought her first house, that the interest rates were 15%. She knew it was 6.1% when she took out the mortgage. And she knows that as she had the loan for 15 years, it’s down to 3% now which is not high.

And she and every other customer got a statement every year showing how much interest had been charged that year.

  • Some of the callers grossly exaggerated the figures.
We know that if a borrower doesn’t pay any capital or interest on a loan at 6.9%, it doubles after 10 years if no interest is paid over those ten years and triples over 15 years.

David said that his mother borrowed “25 grand” and 12 years later it became 85 grand. We now know that he was on the programme before and in fact, he had borrowed 25 thousand Irish pounds and it was 14 years later, not 12 years later. So €31grand euro became 85 grand euro over 14 years, which is in line with it tripling over 15 years. And he told us the last time that he had gone into the bank with his mother when she took out the loan, so he shouldn’t have said that the did not realise the implications.

James said his mother borrowed €12k in 2002 and it had risen to €43k by 2012. That seems wrong and it should have been only €24k after ten years. But we didn’t get to the bottom of it. He did complain to the Ombudsman who dismissed his complaint, so presumably he had no case.

By the way, the Ombudsman publishes all their decisions and we couldn’t find any decisions on Life Loans – either upheld or rejected. So there doesn’t seem to have been a flood of them. Unlike trackers where the Ombudsman upheld hundreds, if not thousands, of complaints.

Denise said that the original loan was €50k and 5 years later she paid €120k . But that included stamp duty and legal fees as she actually bought the house from her mother. The balance on the Life Loan would have been only €70k. As her mother sold the house, there would have been nothing else to pay – no more interest and no early repayment fee.

  • Some callers said that the loans could not be repaid early and that if they were repaid all the outstanding interest must be paid up front.
This was completely untrue.

Under Irish law, any mortgage can be paid off early. It is no different for a Life Loan.

The bank is allowed to charge people with a fixed rate mortgage a reasonable early repayment fee, but they are not allowed to make a profit out of it or impose a penalty.

Again, the brochure was crystal clear on this issue:

If I take out a Life Loan from Bank of Ireland Mortgages can I subsequently decide to repay the loan in full or to make a part repayment?

Yes. Life Loan can be repaid in whole or in part at any time. However, because the interest rate is fixed for the first 15 years, you may have to pay an additional repayment sum if Life Loan is repaid in circumstances other than the sale of your home, your leaving your home for a period of 6 months or more, or your death. If you think this may occur then Life Loan may not be the best option for you.

As with any fixed rate loan, the early repayment fee is quite high at the start of the 15 years, but gets smaller towards the end.

So if the borrower came into money or if their kids wanted to pay the loan off early, they could have done so at any time.

One caller Deirdre said that her mother had borrowed €30k and when her mother had died, it had risen to €70k . She had the money to pay off the loan so she didn’t need to sell the house. But she claimed that someone in the Bank told her that she was just in time. Because a week later the bank would have taken the house off her and it was worth €300k. This was just nonsense and Deirdre must have misunderstood. If €70k was owed, then that is all that would have been charged.

And there is no early repayment charge after 15 years!

When the 15 years fixed rate is up, the interest changes to a special rate for Lifetime Mortgages of 3% variable. That is a lot less than Bank of Ireland’s variable rates for normal mortgage holders which can be as high as 4.5%!

As it’s a variable rate, it can be repaid fully without any early repayment fee. And if anyone wants to pay a part of it, they can do so.

And anyone who has passed their 15 years, can avail of Bank of Ireland’s normal fixed rates but the variable rate of 3% is probably better.

As I say, 3% isn’t a bad rate. If you owe €100,000 today and you live for another 10 years, you will owe €134k after 10 years. Or if you pay the €250 a month interest charge, after 10 years, you will still owe €100,000.

Most of the calls were from people with Bank of Ireland Life Loans. But some of them took out Lifetime loans with Seniors Money. They did not do fixed rate loans. And anyone who took out a variable rate loan did better as mortgage rates came down, but they did not have the security of a fixed rate loan.

7. So what should you do if you have a Life Loan today and you are worried about it?

If it’s Bank of Ireland and it’s past the 15 years, the interest rate is quite low.

If you took it out since 2006, it’s still on the fixed rate of up to 6.9%. If your children can pay off some or all of it early, they should think about it. Talk to a financial advisor.

If you took out a Lifetime Loan with Seniors Money, the one advertised by Mick Lally, it is on a variable rate. The rates they charge existing customers today is between 2.95% and 4.45% depending on when you took out the loan. As it’s a variable rate loan, you can pay it in full or in part at any time without penalty.



8. What if you are worried about the Fair Deal Scheme?

The Fair Deal Scheme is very complicated. If you give your child a present of €100k, then the Fair Deal Scheme will add this back when calculating your means. And it’s no different for the Life Loan. If you borrowed money to go on a holiday or to give it to your child, then they will add this back.

On the other hand, if you borrowed the money to fix up your house with new windows or a downstairs bathroom, the Fair Deal Scheme won’t penalise you for it. Make sure that if you did borrow the money to do up your house, that you keep the receipts to show the HSE when applying for the Fair Deal.

9. The final question you might be facing now is whether you should take out a Lifetime Loan today from the new company Spry Finance which is also known as Seniors Money?

There is nothing at all wrong with Lifetime mortgages. As I said earlier, in the UK there are at least 13 lenders providing them and 40,000 older people took out lifetime mortgages last year alone.

These loans are worth considering for the following reasons:

  • Fixing up your home to make it warmer or more comfortable or to put in a toilet downstairs
  • Helping your child get on the housing ladder
  • Paying for health expenses not covered by insurance
You should not take out one of these loans or any loan for the following reasons:

  • To buy a new car
  • To go on holiday
  • To pay for a child’s wedding
  • To redesign your patio and garden
  • To lend to your child to clear their business debts
  • To lend to your child to invest in their business
  • To make an investment – it’s unlikely that the returns on the investment will cover the interest rate
If you are not paying for these with cash, then say “I can’t afford it.”

But if you do need to fix up your home, see if there is any other way to do it.

Would it be worth selling your big house and buying a smaller more comfortable house instead of borrowing the money?

Would your children be able to lend you the money? After all, they will get it back when you die. And they won’t have to worry about the possibility of a loan eating up their inheritance.

Of course you could go to a Credit Union, but they will charge you 8% and you will have to pay it back over the next 10 years. The Seniors Money loan is a lot cheaper and much more flexible. You can pay it back if you want to, or you can let the interest roll up.



But if you do decide to go for a Lifetime loan today…

If you borrow €100k today and make no payments in the meantime, you will owe €170k after 10 years and €225k after 15 years.

And if you borrow €100k today and pay the interest of €500 a month every month, well after 15 years you will still owe €100k.

Of course, no one knows what will happen to house prices over the next 10 or 15 years. While some of the callers last week took out a Life Loan around the peak of property prices and so their house is worth less today, in general, customers with these products should see the house increase in value by more than the life loan increases, but there is no guarantee of that.

So if you are living in a draughty house and are afraid to turn on the heating because of the expense, then you are better off taking out a life time mortgage and fixing up your house. You might as well live the last 20 years of your life in comfort than live it in the freezing cold so that your children’s inheritance won’t be reduced. Of course, if you are rattling around on your own in a 5 bed draughty house, maybe you should consider selling the house and buying a smaller one which would be cheaper to maintain and more comfortable.
 
Hi Brendan,

Will you give over wih that aul guff?!:D

The truth is that Joe likes to give the impression of being fair to all sides (.....the most wonderfully transparent programme this side of Jupiter). He also likes to luxuriate in the errors of others whilst pretending to be a dacent skin.

The true test of his integrity is how he deals with his own failings when the lens is focussed on him.

I suspect that the radio silence with which your critique will be treated will be telling as it will show, what I've always suspected, that Joey Babe ain't really interested in the truth and fair play. He is interested in saying what the poor craythurs of Ireland expect him to say. In this regard, he is capable of out-sinning the Sinners
 
The Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI) has guidelines on "Fairness, Objectivity & Impartiality". This obliges all broadcasters to ensure that:

the broadcast treatment of current affairs, including matters which are either of public controversy or the subject of current public debate, is fair to all interests concerned and that the broadcast matter is presented in an objective and impartial manner

If anyone thinks that Liveline breached this code you can make a complaint to RTÉ within 30 days of broadcast. (Maybe not Brendan has he was actually on the show.) This is the BAI's guide for complainants. This is the RTÉ complaints page.

A complaint has to focus very clearly and explicitly on how the programme breached the fairness, objectivity and impartiality criteria. I think the most useful angle of attack would be on objectivity grounds (ie, getting facts wrong, and letting wrong facts go unchallenged). RTÉ will argue that it was fair and impartial because the let dissenting voices on (Brendan).

If you are not satisfied with RTÉ's reply you can then complain to the BAI. This is the link.
 
Complaints to public bodies usually fall because the complaint is not provided within the framework within which the public body considers complaints. This framework is usually provided for by legislation. In the case of RTE this is the Broadcasting Act and their Code of Practice for Handling Complaints states:

"RTÉ is obliged under Section 39 (1) of the Broadcasting Act 2009 to ensure that:

(a) all news broadcast is reported and presented in an objective and impartial manner and without any expression of the broadcaster’s own views.

(b) the broadcast treatment of current affairs, including matters which are either of public controversy or the subject of current public debate, is fair to all interests concerned and that the broadcast matter is presented in an objective and impartial manner and without any expression of his or her own views, except that should it prove impracticable in relation to a single broadcast to apply this paragraph, two or more related broadcasts may be considered as a whole, if the broadcasts are transmitted within a reasonable period of each other."

Hopefully I'm wrong but I don't think your complaint, i.e. your e-mail to RTE, will be entertained. Essentially the complaint is that the program may result in negative consequences for the market for life loans in Ireland, because of errors in the programme. This may be a consequence of the programme, but that would not appear to be the basis of a complaint under the Broadcasting Act, which is concerned with complaints of fairness and objectivity in the way matter is broadcast, and not with the consequential effects of broadcasts.
 
Hi PMU

I suppose that while I put the word "complaint" in the title, I would really prefer if I did not need to make a complaint.

I want them to correct the record.

If they reject my suggestion, then I will make a complaint and rephrase it along the lines you and Coyote have said.

Brendan
 
Hello Mr Burgess,

Some fine work above, in your messages to RTE.

I find myself sitting here, smiling, as I picture Joe having to read out your submission, correcting the misinformation that he's already helped to share, and then having that light bulb moment... where he realises that a life loan may actually be the answer to his own concerns, regarding how he'll fund his retirement :D
 
Hi Peanuts

I would say that there may be cases of sons persuading their mothers to take out such loans. I doubt if you would find cases where BoI suggested to a parent to take out one of these to clear their son's debt to Bank of Ireland.

It was a sensitive product and I believe it was promoted ethically. There might be examples where Bank staff did not follow the guidelines. But there was always the fallback of the solicitor to say "This is not a good idea Mrs Peanuts"

Read the shiny brochures for this product and I think you will come to a different conclusion. They were a model of clarity. They pointed out the downsides. They pointed out that after 15 years, the amount you owe will be X.

The Ombudsman and Central Bank have upheld multiple complaints on tracker mortgages.

I can't find any complaints - upheld or rejected - on the Ombudsman's website.

One of the callers to the programme did say that he had made a complaint but it was rejected by the Ombudsman.

Brendan
 
I was speaking to a financial advisor today.

Client's age:75
House value €500k
Bank of Scotland interest only mortgage :€150k - past its term.

BoSI (Pepper?) wants the loan repaid.

She wants to stay in the house.
Neither she nor her kids have the money.

Up until Seniors Money relaunched, she would have had no choice but to sell the house. She could have dragged it out in the courts for 4 years, but that would have been horrible.

Now she has been approved for LifeTime Loan
The kids will pay the interest every month as it arises.
If they have extra cash, they will reduce the loan.

And experts on the programme said that this product should be banned!

Brendan
 
I sent this email to the complaints Department in RTE today

Thanks to No Regrets Coyote for some suggestions and, in particular, for drawing my attention to the RTE Journalism Guidelines, of which I had not been aware.

It's another long read. And it's really just a formalisation of my previous informal suggestion.


Brendan


As I received no response to my informal suggestion as to how you could undo the damage done by the above programmes, I am now lodging the attached formal complaint.

I look forward to getting your response within 30 days.


To: Complaints Department, RTE by email to [email protected]; [email protected]

From: Brendan Burgess,

Programme complained of: Liveline on Wednesday 27th January and Thursday 28th January.

22 February 2021



I wish to make a formal complaint about the above programmes.

The programmes were in clear breach of the following principles and rules of the BAI Codes:



  • Objectivity and Impartiality
  • Accuracy and Responsiveness
19. Views and facts shall not be misrepresented or presented in such a way as to render them misleading. Presenters should be sensitive to the impact of their language and tone in reporting news and current affairs so as to avoid misunderstanding of the matters covered.

20. A significant mistake shall be acknowledged and rectified as speedily as possible, in an appropriate and proportionate manner.

21. A news presenter and/or a reporter in a news programme may not express his or her own view on matters that are either of public controversy or the subject of current public debate.

22. It is an important part of the role of a presenter of a current affairs programme to ensure that the audience has access to a wide variety of views on the subject of the programme or item;

Accuracy and Responsiveness principle

… Accuracy is therefore a fundamental principle associated with the broadcast of news and current affairs content and should always take priority over the speed with which content can be delivered. It is also acknowledged that despite best efforts, inaccurate information can sometimes be conveyed, whether explicitly or implicitly. The principle of responsiveness is designed to ensure that broadcasters adopt fair, timely and appropriate remedies in handling the broadcast of inaccurate information.




The programmes were also in clear multiple breach of the RTE Journalism Guidelines

As many of them duplicate the BAI Guidelines, I will quote only a few of them

4.5 Serving the Public Interest


We are rigorous in establishing the truth of a story and we are well informed when explaining it.

7.3 Accuracy



Where appropriate to the output, we should:

• check and cross check facts



wherever possible corroborate claims and allegations made by contributors and ensure that contentious statements or opinions are not cloaked by anonymity

8.4 Personal Views of Presenters, Reporters and Correspondents



Our audiences should not be able to tell from our output the personal views of our journalists or news and current affairs presenters on matters of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or on ‘controversial subjects’ in any other area.

11.3 Live Programming and Fairness

In live programming, such as phonein shows, there may be particular difficulties in following the exact procedures and protocols set down in these guidelines. However, the same standards apply to such programmes. Programme-makers in phone-in shows must do their utmost to ensure that fairness, objectivity and impartiality, as well as a respect for privacy, remain paramount.






The programmes were in breach of BAI Rule 22 requiring access to a wide variety of views.



The Programmes were also in clear breach of the RTE Journalism Guideline 11.3 requiring objectivity and an effort to contact relevant potential contributors.



22. It is an important part of the role of a presenter of a current affairs programme to ensure that the audience has access to a wide variety of views on the subject of the programme or item;

Guideline 11.3 Programme-makers in phone-in shows must do their utmost to ensure that fairness, objectivity and impartiality, as well as a respect for privacy, remain paramount.

In live programming dealing with rolling or breaking news issues, every effort should be made to contact relevant potential contributors as early as possible.


On the first day, there were 10 callers condemning the product. There were no callers or experts allowed through to defend or explain the product.

On the second day, there were 4 callers condemning the product and 3 experts condemning the product. I was the one and only caller allowed through to correct the mistake made by the callers and to challenge their outrageous claims.

That is a total of 17 to 1, or 18 to 1 if you include the presenter on the side of the critics.

The programme did invite Bank of Ireland and Seniors Money onto the programme. Of course, it would have been impossible for a lender to get a fair hearing on a call-in programme and so they declined. Look at the abuse I got from the callers when I was trying to set out the facts. I am a consumer advocate - imagine how a spokesperson from the lenders would have been abused.

Why did the programme not put through callers who had benefited from the product or advisors who thought that the product was useful?

If there were no such callers, it was the duty of the programme to seek out such callers or experts who would explain the product as is specifically mandated by Guideline 11.3: every effort should be made to contact relevant potential contributors as early as possible.



The programmes were in clear breach of the RTE Journalism Guideline 7.3 on Accuracy and Guideline 4.5 on Serving the Public Interest

7.3 Accuracy

Where appropriate to the output, we should:



• check and cross check facts



wherever possible corroborate claims and allegations made by contributors and ensure that contentious statements or opinions are not cloaked by anonymity

4.5 Serving the Public Interest



We are rigorous in establishing the truth of a story and we are well informed when explaining it.


There was no evidence whatsoever of any effort to establish the truth of the outrageous claims made by the contributors, much less a rigorous effort.

There was no evidence of any attempt to corroborate the claims and allegations.

The callers made multiple significant mistakes and outrageous claims about the product. Not only did the presenter not challenge these, but he repeated them as if they were factual and accurate.

I have documented those mistakes and outrageous claims on the attached letter to the Producer asking her to correct them.

I also attach a copy of the Life Loan brochure from 2004 which would have made it clear to the presenter and the researchers just how outrageous the claims made by callers were.

The presenter should have corrected those mistakes and challenged those outrageous claims as they were made. The topic of Life Loans was covered by the programme in January 2016. I was on the programme at the time explaining the product and correcting those errors. And, a few days later another expert, John Lowe was on the programme explaining the product.

As they had covered it before, the researchers and presenter ought to have known enough about the product so that the presenter would not allow repeated significant mistakes to be broadcast.

Yet, the presenter allowed these outrageous claims and errors to be broadcast without challenge.

The programmes were in clear breach of BAI Rule 20 requiring mistakes to be corrected



The programmes were also in clear breach of the RTE Journalism Guideline no. 16.3



20. A significant mistake shall be acknowledged and rectified as speedily as possible, in an appropriate and proportionate manner.

RTE Journalism Guideline 16.3: If the mistake is more significant and the view is taken that the public record needs amending, the programme or service responsible for the broadcast or publication of the inaccurate information will clarify matters as soon as is feasible.

Having made those mistakes, it was incumbent on the programme to correct them. I emailed the producer of the programme a few days later asking that they read out a statement correcting all the errors. I did not even receive an acknowledgment.

These same standards apply to Live Programming

I think it’s worth reproducing Guideline 11.3 again in case the producer of the programmes defends the programmes by claiming they have no control over what callers say.

11.3 Live Programming and Fairness

In live programming, such as phonein shows, there may be particular difficulties in following the exact procedures and protocols set down in these guidelines. However, the same standards apply to such programmes. Programme-makers in phone-in shows must do their utmost to ensure that fairness, objectivity and impartiality, as well as a respect for privacy, remain paramount.

In live programming dealing with rolling or breaking news issues, every effort should be made to contact relevant potential contributors as early as possible. Be aware that the notice may be too short to enable contributors to be sufficiently informed or to have determined their responses. The audience may need to be informed that insufficient notice was given to interests where participation in a programme could be expected.




The presenter was in clear breach of Rules 19 and 21 of the BAI Codes and the RTE Journalism Guideline 8.4 that he should not express personal views.



BAI Code 19. … Presenters should be sensitive to the impact of their language and tone in reporting news and current affairs so as to avoid misunderstanding of the matters covered.

BAI Code 21. A news presenter and/or a reporter in a news programme may not express his or her own view on matters that are either of public controversy or the subject of current public debate.


RTE Journalism Guideline 8.4

Our audiences should not be able to tell from our output the personal views of our journalists or news and current affairs presenters on matters of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or on ‘controversial subjects’ in any other area.

It was very clear from the presenter’s language and tone and the fact that he did not challenge the callers what his views on this product were.

It was compound interest – and the Bank will say it was all in the small print – it was compound interest – compound interest 6%

It was fixed for a fixed term. If you won the lotto and paid it off early, you would have to pay the interest for 15 years – believe it or not.

We had these incredible figures yesterday – a loan for 30k now owe 90k .

A lifeloan is a hefty, hefty debt on your house

As we heard yesterday – the bank owns more than the value of the house
[no it doesn’t – all such loans have a guarantee that there will be no negative equity]

As the BoI said yesterday: this was all approved by the Regulator.

Something about small print

There are no less than 5 different warnings in 5 different boxes. Does that not raise the question . If you are putting a product on the market that requires 5 separate warnings, does someone not say…

Give over this old guff that [the high rate] is due to programmes like this
[in response to the one caller, me, explaining why the interest rates were so high.]

You can hear the despair in people’s voices

And nonsensical stuff from the presenter about whether legal advice was required or not.

And more nonsensical stuff from the presenter that people did not see it as a mortgage, but as a trip to Lourdes.

The presenter did make occasional comments in defence of the product.

The sign says Bank of Ireland – it doesn’t say St Vincent de Paul – society depends on them.

One commentator said “Why leave all the money to your children, spend it on yourself. And someone said yesterday she liked going to Lourdes and Fatima. So why should they tell their children.

The high charges, not criminal.
[in response to a caller who called them criminal]

While the presenter did balance the comments on occasion, his comments and his tone were clearly prejudiced and biased against the product.



The programmes were in clear breach of RTE’s public service remit.

The breaches referred to above were not some technical breaches of annoying codes and guidelines on some minor issue affecting only a few thousand people. The RTE Journalism Guidelines and BAI Codes are important in ensuring that RTE broadcasts high quality, unbiased and balanced programmes.

The topic of life loans is very important and it deserves to be covered in a high quality, unbiased and balanced manner.

With an aging population and declining pensions, there is a huge societal need for these products. In the UK there are at least 13 lenders providing them, including such well-known names as Scottish Widows, Canada Life, Nationwide Building Society, Aviva and Legal & General. During 2020, over 40,000 elderly people drew down these lifetime mortgages with an average of about £100k each. The interest rates in the UK are much lower because of all the competition.

We need to have a balanced, adult conversation in this country about these products:

  • Their pros and cons
  • The risk and rewards
  • When they should be used and when they should be avoided
  • Alternatives to these products
  • The costs and ways of minimising the costs
  • How they should be marketed and explained to consumers
The irony is that many of the listeners to Liveline are in the demographic that could hugely benefit from these products.

Some of the listeners to the programmes already have these products and will be frightened by the programme that they have made a huge mistake and will be excluded from the Fair Deal Scheme.

Others who could benefit from taking out a life loan now will be discouraged from doing so by your horror stories.

Redress required.

  • Liveline should at the earliest possible opportunity, broadcast an expert-led programme on these products. It should not be a phone-in. But a calm discussion among experts. Which could be followed by a phone-in with questions about the products.
  • In future, when dealing with any complex financial issue, the programme should do rigorous research beforehand to ensure that the presenter is adequately briefed so that he can challenge outrageous claims and correct mistakes as they are broadcast.
 
. . . . . . . more good publicity for Joe Duffy against the Dons of high finance and welcomed by Joe, I think - playing right into his hands.
. . . . . . . and what redress do I think you'll get = Quick worded statement by Joe within seconds of the end of some uninteresting programme on a wet Tuesday.

Brendan - I am glad you did not take that attitude to the AIB
Prevailing Rate issue. The near 6000 who in total benefitted around 330 million sure appreciated it. Sometimes, the system works as it should, so an
occasional success outweighs the failures
 
Point 22 Joe Duffy is not a current affairs programme. It’s light entertainment.

point 21, Duffy is not a reporter or news presenter. He’s an entertainer. Or radio presenter.

But it is clear Duffy was biased and egging people on. I also think there was a deliberate strategy to cut in on Burgess and leave him hanging. I wonder was that communicated during the show to Joe by the managers, and would there be a record of that.
 
Last edited:
Hi Bronte

It was about 7 or 8 to one. A lot of people said that he cut me off to go to ad breaks.

I did not feel that at the time. And listening back to it, he did give me a fair chance. The others did shout me down a few times, ok.

I would expect that some RTE Committee will listen to it and will make up their own mind. Assuming, they close ranks, I will send it on to the BAI.

It is a fair bit of work, but it has to be done. Very few complaints against RTE succeed with the BAI, but it might make them reflect on the issue before covering again. Or a dismissed complaint might embolden the programme, knowing that they can get away with it.

Brendan
 
Hi Bronte

It was about 7 or 8 to one. A lot of people said that he cut me off to go to ad breaks.

I did not feel that at the time. And listening back to it, he did give me a fair chance. The others did shout me down a few times, ok.

I would expect that some RTE Committee will listen to it and will make up their own mind. Assuming, they close ranks, I will send it on to the BAI.

It is a fair bit of work, but it has to be done. Very few complaints against RTE succeed with the BAI, but it might make them reflect on the issue before covering again. Or a dismissed complaint might embolden the programme, knowing that they can get away with it.

Brendan
As you know I spent time listening back, I think you were deliberately cut out. I’ve been listening to him for entertainment for years. My opinion is you were set up/used. That’s how the show works. My angle for you is can you get info on what was directed as regards the transmission instructions under Freedom of Information.
 
A technical question.

I have got a reply from RTE which just rejects all the points made, so I will refer it to the BAI.

But in the complaint, they say:

As the complaints procedure deals with perceived breaches of the Broadcasting Act and/or BAI Codes and not RTE Journalism Guidelines, I will address your points related to the former.

There is a huge overlap anyway between the two so dropping references to the Journalism Guidelines doesn't weaken the complaint that much.

I put in a call to the BAI about this, and am awaiting a response. But does anyone know

1) Does the BAI pay any attention to RTE's own Journalism Guidelines?
2) If not, does that mean that there is no scope for complaints about breaches of these guidelines to anyone?

Brendan
 
1) Does the BAI pay any attention to RTE's own Journalism Guidelines?
Maybe, but not in the context of your complaint.

2) If not, does that mean that there is no scope for complaints about breaches of these guidelines to anyone?


RTÉ doesn't seem to have any kind of external appeals or complaints body so once RTÉ is done with you the only port of all is the BAI.
 
Hi Brendan,
My advice would be to quit this while you're behind. You don't have anything to gain other than (at most) a recorded quick verbal apology read at speed on a wet Tuesday 2.59pm just as most of the population will be switching off. That "apology" may be followed up by another written apology in Page 27 (bottom left hand corner) of the RTE Guide as if somebody will find it.

Lep
 
The BAI called me back very promptly.

They will consider complaints only under the legislation and codes, and not under the Journalism Guidelines.

Just for anyone else thinking of submitting a complaint, there is no point in complaining to RTE about breaches of their Journalism Guidelines. They will reject the complaint and you can't go anywhere else with it after that.

So focus on the the legislation and the BAI Codes.

Brendan
 
Hi Lep

Was it you who advised me to not waste my time going to the Ombudsman on the AIB Prevailing Rate Case?

Brendan
No Brendan, It was not me! - repeat - It was not me.

Looks like you're going ahead anyway with the Joe Duffy thing. Off you go. But please remember I advised you to quit while you're behind.

Lep
 
Back
Top