I watched the recorded piece as it was broadcast - I had not seen it beforehand.
It was simply wrong to say he had a rate specified in his contract. Those who had a rate specified, got them. The 300 or so borrowers who were put on the higher rate had the wording "the tracker rate then prevailing" as discussed at length in this thread
PTSB - on expiry of fixed rate, tracker rate not specified
I tried to explain that and correct the error made in the report, so, of course I came across as "dressing it up" on behalf of ptsb. But I don't go on these programmes simply to ignore the facts and abuse banks.
Thanks for the clarification Brendan.
I've watched the programme again with the aid of a pause button.
The clear inference given was that Mr Ryan was entitled to revert to a tracker at a specified margin above the ECB base rate. However, the document presented on screen (as an example) doesn't actually say that (although the voice over strongly implied that it did).
So, you were absolutely correct - RTE misrepresented the factual position. Frankly, I think that's very shoddy journalism and really undermines my faith in the balance of the claims made in the programme - which I found very difficult to follow.
Was the programme suggesting that BOI deliberately changed their systems so that staff members would default onto standard variable rates after their fixed terms expired even though they were contractually entitled to default back to their trackers? That's shocking if true but I don't really know what to believe at this stage.