Thousands of Ulster Bank customers to get redress after Ombudsman's decision

Brendan Burgess

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
52,129
www.irishtimes.com

Ulster Bank loses High Court appeal against findings in tracker mortgage cases

Bank failed to convince court that ombudsman had committed ‘serious and significant’ error in decisions
www.irishtimes.com www.irishtimes.com


Ulster Bank, part of the NatWest Group, said in its latest annual report that the outcome of the cases “may have a materially adverse impact” on the company.

Counsel for the bank told the High Court last October that the cases may have an impact on “thousands” of customers and trigger “enormous financial” consequences for the lender.
 

Attachments

  • Ulster BAnk vs Ombudsman 3 cases in 2023.pdf
    209.6 KB · Views: 104
I will have to go back over the case in detail but I think that the following customers will benefit:

1) You took out a tracker and your contract says it was "fixed for the life of the Home Loan term"
or you drew down a mortgage on the Bank's then Home Loan Rate but you switched to a tracker "which was stated to be fixed for the life of the Home Loan term"

2) You changed from the tracker to a fixed rate including a staff fixed rate.
3) The documentation you got when you fixed did not tell you that you would lose your entitlement to a tracker.
4) When the fixed rate ended you were not offered a tracker.

You won't benefit in the following cases

1)You do not have the "fixed for the life of the Home Loan term" in the contract or the switch documentation.
2) You were offered a tracker when the fixed rate ended but chose a different rate. (if your fixed rate ended before trackers were withdrawn in 2008)
 
Last edited:
@john_mcm

The High Court judgement was a real knockout punch for the Ombudsman.

The judge was very critical of Ulster Bank and their "more than 40 grounds for objection".

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that they can only appeal on a point of law. If it were a one off case, they definitely would not appeal.

But an appeal will probably cost them €1m. Winning it would probably save them €100m. They don't care about their reputation as they have left the country, so they could make a financial calculation and appeal it. They would not expect to win, but the payoff of winning would be worth risking €1m in legal fees.

When ptsb proposed appealing a High Court decision, I understand that the Central Bank let them know that they did not approve of the approach. But such moral suasion would have no impact on Ulster Bank.

If they do appeal, it will be to the Court of Appeal.

Brendan
 
The FSPO have confirmed that Ulster Bank leaving the market would not be able to prevent them from investigating complaints from customers. Ulster Bank will retain several staff in ireland for quite some years until the full regulatory process has completed and will be allowing for charges/redress/compensation/refunds in their accounts. PTSB will not be running any Ulster Bank redress scheme.

Even in the original 'TME/Tracker Mortgage Examination' compensation and redress was paid by cheque directly to customers.

In relation to disclosure, it's public knowledge that there has been a pending court case and PTSB would be aware of this. Like I said, Ulster Bank will run the redress so it's not a risk for PTSB from a lending point of view. NatWest who own Ulster Bank Group are shareholders in PTSB by the way.
 
Would this impact people who had moved home and were pushed onto higher margin trackers?
 
daheff said:
Would this impact people who had moved home and were pushed onto higher margin trackers?
Click to expand...
No, as the original mortgage would be redeemed upon the sale of the property with the tracker and any rate attached to it gone.

The new house had a new loan and subject to the then current rates on offer. One of those rates was a tracker at 1% over a reference rate that was your previous tracker.
 
I am continually intrigued when a bank states what the decision will cost them unaware that in fact it’s money they have taken from their customers (compensation time value aside) but it appears okay to delay the return of the customers money, taken wrongly now supported by not only the Fspo bit also the high court but ‘let’s keep trying to deny the customer their money and have another go
I really hope ulster cop on and give people closure on this matter
Yes they have a right to appeal further but customers have rights also
My message to Ulster is not to be persuaded by a legal team who win either way and stand up and do the correct thing without any further delay
Pádraic
 
Brendan Burgess said:
But an appeal will probably cost them €1m. Winning it would probably save them €100m. They don't care about their reputation as they have left the country, so they could make a financial calculation and appeal it. They would not expect to win, but the payoff of winning would be worth risking €1m in legal fees.
Click to expand...

Hi Padraic

But they do not see it the same way as you and the Ombudsman. They see it the same way as the former Ombudsman, Bill Prasifka.

I have made the same point you have made about trackers - the banks were just giving back money which they had wrongly taken from their customers.

But the plain arithmetic is that it's worth their while appealing even if they have a very slim chance of succeeding.

Brendan
 
Yes and legal firms will anyways tell you what
Bring it to court they lose otherwise
Doing the right thing should be a consideration as regards ombudsman mentioned don’t get me started
 
Hi Padraic

But "the right thing" is open to interpretation.

The Central Bank (probably) accepted Ulster Bank's interpretation.
Bill Prasifka accepted Ulster Bank's interpretation.

Ger Deering disagreed.

The High Court didn't express an opinion other than to defer to the Ombudsman on it.

Brendan
 
What's more confusing and concerning to me is the seemingly dramatic divergence of FSPO decisions depending on the invidual(s) in position at the time. It suggests that the process has a lot of subjectivity baked in.
 
ClubMan said:
What's more confusing and concerning to me is the seemingly dramatic divergence of FSPO decisions depending on the invidual(s) in position at the time. It suggests that the process has a lot of subjectivity baked in.
Click to expand...

But ClubMan - you and I could look at a case, discuss it in detail, and arrive at different conclusions.

I have seen cases where I thought that the borrower had no case, yet the Ombudsman upheld their case. And I have brought cases to the Ombudsman and lost.

Take this UB case.

1) The contract says: You will have a tracker at a margin of 1% over ECB for the life of the mortgage.
2) The customer subsequently fixed for three years.

The former Ombudsman said that it was clear that fixing replaced the pricing commitment in the contract. I don't agree, but it is certainly a reasonable interpretation.

Brendan
 

Thousands of tracker mortgage cases at stake as Ulster Bank to appeal ruling to Supreme Court​


UBIL will attempt to leap frog the Court of Appeal and if that fails will go to Court of Appeal and if they lose there will go to Supreme Court.

This will be an exceptionally important case as hopefully the Supreme Court will lay out the extent of the powers of FSPO which they are often reluctant to use.

www.independent.ie

Thousands of tracker mortgage cases at stake as Ulster Bank to appeal ruling to Supreme Court

Ulster Bank wants to appeal against a High Court ruling that upheld the entitlement of two borrowers’ to tracker mortgage refunds and compensation.
www.independent.ie www.independent.ie
 
Decisions of the Court of Appeal can only be appealed to the Supreme Court, if the Supreme Court accepts that:
  • The decision involves a matter of general public importance, or
  • In the interests of justice, it is necessary that there is an appeal
So it is far from automatic. If I was acting for Nat West that is the approach I would adopt.

Some of your own arguments about fairness to Banks (!) such as a case not being upheld by the FSPO a number of times and then one case upheld and the Central Bank insisting that it now applies to the whole cohort is precisely whats happened here.
 
I note in previous coverage that Justice Bolger was to review and clarify appeal route/process at another hearing later in July?. Has this happened?
 
Padraic Kissane has an interesting opinion piece in the Irish Times

www.irishtimes.com

Opinion: Ulster Bank: end your legal battle with account holders over their right to a tracker rate

Ulster Bank has already failed in these cases with the FSPO and in the High Court. It’s now planning to exhaust the appeals process, but enough is enough
www.irishtimes.com www.irishtimes.com


Enough is enough from Ulster Bank. Those in power within it should stop listening to its legal teams (who get paid either way) and think of its customers in its final days in this country.

I would agree with this. I suggest to bankers that they leave the lawyers outside the room when dealing with consumer issues. Do what is right for the customer, not what they can get away with legally.

But it's a tough one for Ulster Bank.

Bill Prasifka dismissed these customer complaints. Ger Deering upheld them.

The Central Bank tells the banks to apply any uncontested Ombudsman decision to all affected customers.

Ger Deering has rejected many complaints about tracker issues. Do we now bring them again under the new Ombudsman and hope he arrives at a different conclusion?

Brendan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top