AIB Aib disputes 100 cases (update : 3,000 cases!)

M

moneymakeover

Registered User
Messages
952
Anyone know which kind of case is disputed?
Update - 11.35am: Latest: AIB CEO apologises to tracker customers but disputes group of 100 are on wrong rate



The Chief Executive of AIB has apologised to customers affected by the bank wrongly taking them off tracker mortgages.



Bernard Byrne made the comments as he left a meeting with the Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe.



AIB removed 3,200 customers from trackers and to date 3,100 have returned to the rates, but the bank disputes another group of customers are on the wrong rate.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I am guessing that they are the people who whose contract entitled them to a tracker at the prevailing rate on conclusion of their fixed rate period.
However, they were told that AIB no longer do tracker mortgages.
Then 5 years later, they agreed they were wrong and said "Well if we had trackers available, the rate would have been 3.67% which is higher than the SVR so they were not impacted."

Crazy of AIB to be disputing this. They can't create a prevailing rate after the event. As the numbers are so small, they should just have sorted them out.

Brendan
 
There must be something bigger at stake.

They'd never take a stand like this on such a small number.

The central bank should start enforcement proceedings against them.
 
Actually according to the Irish Times this morning, they're disputing far more than 100 cases and potentially it could double their impacted customers.

As I understand it, they are refusing to review certain accounts which don't have a tracker rate in the contract. However, these accounts (which were on fixed rates during 2008) had an entitlement to be offered the tracker rate on exiting a fixed rate up until the point in which it stopped being offered by the bank. Apparently the bank didn't offer a certain number of fixed rate customers the tracker rate when it should have.

The statements later on will be interesting...
 
I must say I was surprised when I heard it was only 100. It would make no sense for them to dispute such a small amount on a case which is definitely arguable.

OK, here is the story from the Irish Times

Thousands more AIB customers could be eligible for redress

The bank, in correspondence, has said on several occasions that it has examined the position of people who had fixed-rate mortgages with the bank but who had not previously been on a tracker rate, and that it had decided they did not meet the criteria for compensation.

Numbers entitled to compensation and an offer of a new tracker rate could now more than double the current figure of 3,200 – a number that has been consistent since its update in July and only 100 higher than its March figure.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I suspect it is far more than 100 I already see on another thread about folk like myself being denied tracker by EBS And deemed not impacted as they fixed in circa 2006 and then put on variable at end of period.

I suspect many prudent people fixed back then and there may be large hidden volume not being mentioned.

Thanks
BW
 
with each passing day brendan, we are getting more private messages on here and other sites from people who are just realising that they are in the same situation as us in relation to the 3.2 clause. i hope that the banks start contacting people to let them know if they are included as up until recently it has only been people who have been proactive in the matter
 
AIB STATEMENT - re Irish Times article (25th October)

AIB has been clear at all times that the Central Bank review is ongoing. Any customer covered by the terms of the review will be included.

Customers who had a tracker in the circumstances referred to have been restored to their original rate and fully compensated.

Customers who never had a tracker may avail of a tracker product at the prevailing rate when their fixed rate product matured.

ENDS
 
Brendan Burgess said:
AIB STATEMENT - re Irish Times article (25th October)

Customers who never had a tracker may avail of a tracker product at the prevailing rate when their fixed rate product matured.

ENDS
Click to expand...

Am I reading this right? Is it time for you all to start writing and making formal requests to be backdated?
 
I feel like I'm going round in circles here with AIB! So we're basically back to "what is the prevailing rate"? When AIB wrote to me they apologised and said they should've offered me the Bank's prevailing tracker rate at 5.16% (ECB+4.91%). This was in February 2011 (after I came off a fixed rate of 5.2%). They're now offering me a "commercially priced" prevailing tracker rate of 3.67% (ECB+3.67%). I know that Michael McGrath (FF) asked the CEO of AIB about this "prevailing rate" and the CEO just shrugged his shoulders and looked to his colleague and then said "that's what it is, the prevailing rate". So is it that AIB are saying their "prevailing rate" is being driven by their dominant rate at the time, most likely the SVR+ECB? Can anyone shine some light on this? Can it be argued that the prevailing rate is the rate that is most dominant across their book of tracker mortgages at the time?
 
Frequent Poster
A quote from Bernard Byrne AIB at the Oireachtas Committee Meeting recently;

"Our view of the prevailing rate is that it is the rate that prevails at the time at which the product is offered and that is how we consider it".
 
"Our view of the prevailing rate is that it is the rate that prevails at the time at which the product is offered and that is how we consider it".

Prevailing would suggest one that is existing at a particular time. And if they trackers weren't existing at that time, what rate should they be offering? the current market rate, which would be the ECB rate?
 
Lightening said:
Frequent Poster
A quote from Bernard Byrne AIB at the Oireachtas Committee Meeting recently;

"Our view of the prevailing rate is that it is the rate that prevails at the time at which the product is offered and that is how we consider it".
Click to expand...
I felt sure this was being quoted out of context so I looked up the transcript * and it is quite clear that the "product being offered" referred to the options being offered at the end of the fixed rate period.

* Exchange with Michael McGrath near the top.
 
Last edited:
Dunned said:
"Our view of the prevailing rate is that it is the rate that prevails at the time at which the product is offered and that is how we consider it".

Prevailing would suggest one that is existing at a particular time. And if they trackers weren't existing at that time, what rate should they be offering? the current market rate, which would be the ECB rate?
Click to expand...
Read the transcript of the discussion that I posted above. The ECB rate is of course never a retail market rate. Michael McGrath identifies that what is really at issue is the "margin" over ECB. Trackers were no longer available from anyone but BB argues that if they were they would be similar to SVR rate.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
. Trackers were no longer available from anyone but BB argues that if they were they would be similar to SVR rate.
Click to expand...

And that is fatal to AIB's argument in my opinion.

They can't create a "prevailing" rate 6 years later.

So the Ombudsman or the court should determine was was the prevailing rate in the absence of a prevailing rate.

In my opinion, that should be the last tracker rate on offer.

Had AIB at the time set a prevailing rate of 10% and put people on it, they would have very little argument now. But AIB did not do that, so they should give these people the last available rate.

Brendan
 
Similar to what I was saying in PTSB thread.
You could argue that you choose aib as their tracker rate was 'x' at time of signing contract.
You wouldn't have signed if the rate was going to be circa +10%.

The contract was signed with good faith that the same or at least similar rate would be on offer.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
And that is fatal to AIB's argument in my opinion.

They can't create a "prevailing" rate 6 years later.

So the Ombudsman or the court should determine was was the prevailing rate in the absence of a prevailing rate.

In my opinion, that should be the last tracker rate on offer.

Had AIB at the time set a prevailing rate of 10% and put people on it, they would have very little argument now. But AIB did not do that, so they should give these people the last available rate.

Brendan
Click to expand...
IMHO this is a try on by the punters. As you say, if AIB had known that they would be involved in such dancing on the head of a pin in 2017 they would have maintained a Tracker offering but set it close to SVR rate. You may be right and a court may find that the prevailing rate, where none prevails, is what it was when it last prevailed, plenty of fun for lawyers in that:eek: But if the punter wins that, again IMHO, it would be a lucky windfall break not a triumph for justice.
 
Last edited:
Hi Duke

I think it's a try on by AIB and I would be surprised if the Central Bank does not allow it.

What's wrong with a lucky break? 300,000 tracker holders got a lucky break because the bank stupidly gave out trackers.

When AIB issued those fixed rate mortgages the general expectation by them and by the customers was for trackers of around 1%.

I really think that AIB should respect this.

But at the end of the day, it will be the High Court which decides.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
When AIB issued those fixed rate mortgages the general expectation by them and by the customers was for trackers of around 1%.

Brendan
Click to expand...

Boss I'm not with you on this one at all. What about this for a try on? "Your honour, when I took out my SVR with XYZ bank in 2004 they were offering Trackers. I fully expected that I could switch to a Tracker at any time but then they went and stopped writing them. If I had known they would do that I would never have gone with them in the first place."

I'm all for lucky breaks. Indeed I think that if a bank makes a mistake and puts an extra 0 on my bank balance that I am entitled to the benefit of that mistake. But don't tell me this is a redress for anti customer/scandalous?/fraudulent?/criminal? behaviour.

AIB are between a rock and a hard place on this one. As you say they will probably have CBI backing and IMHO would win any court case hands down. So do they have a duty to the shareholder (which is 75% the taxpayer) to pursue this or should they cave in to the lynch mob?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top