A review of those deemed "not impacted".

Pewter

Registered User
Messages
17
@Brendan Burgess Hi Brendan, I think the list is a great idea. I know that the first on your list was the Bank of Ireland staff cases and that's a kind of a catch-all. However, I think a lot of staff who had been on a tracker at some point are now being picked up. There is a specific point about those who were on the 2 year fixed rate (the one that the Bank referred to on its intranet site when closing the tracker. As you know by now, that announcement said that this particular product would roll on to a tracker).The line from the bank was that the insite article was based on the best information available at the time. In short they said it was a mistake.

The key point was that, if it was a mistake, it was based on the understanding we all had. Bank policy was to offer trackers to fixed rates (staff new that), the MFA for the two year product referred to a tracker as a roll off (and no reference to variable), the products were set up on the system to roll on to trackers. The insite article was based on everyone's understanding (including the author) and it was only rowed back on because contractual loopholes were found to get out from under it.

There was a large group of us on that product and some have been told they are impacted and others not (it seems like you had to have a tracker at some point in the past). It seems that the bank is distinguishing between the different journeys that people went on to get on to the two year rate. Some had been on a tracker, moved to a staff variable and then on to the two year. I (and many like me) joined that journey at the second stage simply as a function of when I drew down in 2006. What we all had in common was our belief in 2008. We all knew the value of a tracker at that point and would have broken out of the fixed rate but our understanding (and the understanding of the Bank when it closed the tracker) was that we didn't need to.

It seems to me that the bank is using the different journeys as a way to not confront the substantial issue of the expectation created for those on the two year rate (and their own publication on insite which was a symptom of that expectation) and doing so, reduced the number being impacted. Given that this has still led to a high number, I think there is a fair chance that they will get away with it. John McGuinness opened the question by explicitly raising the communication during BoI's latest visit to the Oireachtas but Liam McLoughlin claimed not to know about it. I hope John comes back to it.

In short Brendan, I'd love to see the issue of the Staff 2 year fixed rate, the expectation that had been built around it and the insite article called out as a specific item on your list of those deemed not impacted.
 

TMH2017

Frequent Poster
Messages
61
just re-confirm & agree with this point , all internal systems up to mid Nov'08 had all staff on the 2 year fixed rolling to the staff tracker but this was amended so that we would roll to the variable so the expectation/commitment was there from the Bank at outset of the fixed rate and up to that point but was subsequently reneged , unfortunate that the CB have not pushed more on this point with differentials vs. other cases that are deemed impacted minimal
 

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
37,953
Guys this thread is about compiling a list of those deemed "not impacted"

It's not a thread to rehash and discuss your own story in detail or to just post more chat about how terrible the banks are. All such posts will be deleted.

Brendan
 
Top