I am not happy with this story at all!
I am not happy with story at all. The headline ran...
<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr> <!--EZCODE BOLD START--> Credit watchdog is puzzled by 'excessive and unfair' AIB charges <!--EZCODE BOLD END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->
This contributes to the view that banks are ripping off customers all the time. But while the story is interesting, all it does is list one of AIB's customers in 1999 who had a disagreement with AIB which was resolved by the Ombudsman.
And the story does try to strike a balance by reporting AIB's side of the story:
<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr>
Earlier in his report,(the ombudsman) noted that, "correctly and fairly applied... there is no doubt that many of those fees (on the complainant's accounts) are in order."
"However, there are a few instances where a fee was debited even though the balance in the overdraft was less than the amount on deposit. I do not consider it was fair to apply a fee in that situation.
"Furthermore, in a cursory examination of the individual statements, I have noticed quite a few occasions when individual fees of £3.50 were applied, which puzzle me. It is not at all clear why these particular fees were charged, and it may well be that they are not justified."
<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->
So a customer queried the charges and the Ombudsman felt that some were fair and some were not.
AIB, our largest bank responded:
<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr>
"Of the 897 cases (for all of the institutions) which were referred to the Ombudsman in the period to June 2002, 43 related to AIB and were progressed through the scheme.
"Fifteen of those cases were subsequently upheld by the Ombudsman, and resulted in awards totalling approximately €7,000 being recommended in favour of the relevant customers.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->
So in total, the Ombudsman has awarded €7,000 against AIB's customers in the unspecified period to June 2002.
This hardly merits the headline, which implied that overcharging was widespread.
<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr>
The businessman closed the account in 1999 still "owing AIB around £4,000". He says that he "tried to do a settlement."
However, last year an investment policy, which had been assigned to AIB when he took out the loan was partially cashed in to cover his debts, amounting to £5,086 at that stage. He feels hard done by, as this was his "family's security."<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->
Does this sound like a compliant customer? He tried to do a settlement. There is only one way to do a settlement - pay back the money you owe.
Tyson finishes his article with;
<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr> We would also like to point out that we have no reason to believe that this story represents a pattern of behaviour by AIB.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->
There is every reason to believe that this represents a pattern of behaviour by AIB. When people don't pay their loans, AIB, eventually call in the security. As a depositor, I would withdraw my money from AIB, if they did anything less!
FF