AIB AIB failure to advise us of our interest options - entitled to redress?

Culainn

New Member
Our AIB loan approval letter stated :
‘ you will be advised of your interest rate options before 03/04/2007 and interest instruction will be required prior to that date ‘.
They failed to advise us . We would have chosen a tracker it we knew it was an option .
Are we entitled to redress ? AIB says no.
 
Unlikely, but it's hard to tell without more detail.

I presume you had a fixed rate mortgage and the fixed period ended in 3 April 2007?

What happened then? Did they just default you to the SVR?

AIB did write to people and told them what their options were, so it's odd that they did not write to you.

Did you take it up with them at the time?

Brendan
 

Culainn

New Member
Yes .
Then they just defaulted to the SVR
They did not write to us .
No we did not take it up with them at the time as we did not realise the significance of not hearing from them.
In rejecting our claim , they recently acknowledged that they did not write to us and apologised 'for any
inconvenience caused ' !.
 

elacsaplau

Frequent Poster
So AIB breached the CPC (by not providing all relevant info. and related provisions) and have acknowledged and admitted this. What's the sanction?

What should happen is that AIB fixes this error, informs the Central Bank of its breach and commits to sorting out anyone else that's been impacted.

What actually happens is that AIB seems to do nothing. And the rudderless CB watches on. Just my $0.02
 

elacsaplau

Frequent Poster
RedOnion,

If you are going to make smart comments, better to get your facts right.

I thought a banker would have known when the CPC came into effect. This is genuinely and truly shocking but indicative of much! :rolleyes:
 
Hi Culainn
If they said that they would notify you and did not do so, then I would imagine that it is a breach of contract which is more important than any potential breach of the CPC or good practice.

When did you complain to AIB?

You can make a complaint to the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman.

Brendan
 

elacsaplau

Frequent Poster
The 2006 CPC came into effect as at 1st August 2006. Certain provisions did not take immediate effect. The breach I described was a breach of an in force provision as at the relevant date. It is truly disappointing that you are not aware of this.
 

Sarenco

Frequent Poster
The 2006 CPC came into effect as at 1st August 2006. Certain provisions did not take immediate effect. The breach I described was a breach of an in force provision as at the relevant date. It is truly disappointing that you are not aware of this.
What general principle of the CPC (all that was effective at the time) do you think was so obviously breached?

Regardless, it's of no real assistance to the OP.
 

RedOnion

Frequent Poster
I thought a banker would have known when the CPC came into effect. This is genuinely and truly shocking but indicative of much!
In relation to the personal comments, I would never refer to myself as "a banker", and don't recall ever indicating here that I was. For the avoidance of doubt, I have never worked in a customer facing role, nor am I authorised to do so.

The things I generally post about here are completely different to what I do for a living.

When the first CPC was implemented, I had no involvement in 'consumer' financial products, so any perceived lack of knowledge on my part around the rewording of existing handbooks and regulations should not be extended to be indicative of consumer banking in general.
 

elacsaplau

Frequent Poster
RedOnion - I take this to mean that you accept that you were wrong. Fair enough - let's move on.

Sarenco - Firstly, it is simply not true to say that the only in force provisions as at April 2007 were the general principles. What's your basis for saying this? Secondly, in relation to what principles were breached, I would think that of the 12, there are question marks over half of them! Specifically, 1, 2, 6, 7, 8 and 12!!

Brendan - I can't see where you are getting Sarenco's quote. Are you saying that if a bank breaches the CPC and admits to that breach that knowing this has no real relevance to the OP. If that is your position, our views would not, at all, be aligned!!
 

elacsaplau

Frequent Poster
Hi Brendan,

I agree with the breach of contract aspect.

The point on my initial post was that AIB broke the CPC and my subsequent posts were pretty much required to explain that the CPC was in force because accomplished posters like RedOnion and Sarenco didn't know the effective dates and I wanted to make sure the record here is accurate!

And there is a breach of the CPC in my opinion (probably multiple ones - some harder to prove than others!). You don't have to choose between arguments when complaining to the Ombudsman! It is not an either or situation!! Yesterday, a poster confirmed that he won his case with the Ombudsman because of a breach of the CPC. Why on earth would you restrict yourself to one line of attack as inferred by the "it's of no assistance to the OP" line?

Also, I feel your language is peculiar. We have a "clear" breach of contract but the breach of CPC is relegated to "arguable". Like what's arguable about:

A Regulated Entity must ensure that.....it...….makes full disclosure of all relevant material information...….in a way that seeks to inform the customer

The real interesting question will be if someone takes a case against a bank to the FS&PO and the Ombudsman rules that it was a breach of the CPC - will the bank review all similar cases and "make whole" those impacted?? As in, there are cohorts of customers in relation to whom given banks have claimed "there's nothing to see here, move along" - i.e. where the bank judges its own actions. What happens when the Ombudsman says to the bank, in a ruling, that your judgement is wrong??
 
Last edited:
Hi Elacs

The contractual breach seems to have been acknowledged by AIB. That is very serious.

I regard the CPC as useful where there is no contractual breach - it's a sort of best practice.

Claiming a breach of the CPC would dilute the argument.

I have seen that on some of the other tracker appeals. They have one great argument and 9 weak ones. They make all ten and the Appeals Panel rejects the appeal as they got into the habit of rejecting.

It's a question of strategy.

AIB was obliged to inform me of my options.
They did not do so.
They deprived me of the right to choose a tracker.

That stands on its own. The legal obligation was there. There is no need to say that the CPC also required it.

Brendan
 

elacsaplau

Frequent Poster
Thanks Brendan,

I don't think the strategy is as black and white as you suggest but I see where you're coming from. I genuinely think that the Ombudsman is a clever fella and can appreciate simultaneous arguments! In other cases, the bank will not have admitted the breach of contract and so the CPC will be particularly useful.

One specific, the formal letter from the Financial Regulator introducing the Code, did not introduce it as some sort of wishy washy, sure nice to have, best practice. On the contrary, it was described, as follows:

"The Code is a legally binding document containing a set of general principles supplemented by more detailed sectoral rules."

At the heart of this particular case is that AIB failed in its obligations at the outset and even now - after all the shouting about this scandal - they still need to be brought kicking and screaming before they will do the right thing. It's pretty sad. Just my $0.02!!
 

Sarenco

Frequent Poster
Sarenco - Firstly, it is simply not true to say that the only in force provisions as at April 2007 were the general principles.
The General Principles and certain provisions carried forward from previous codes and handbooks (none of which are relevant here) came into effect on 1 August 2006. But the CPC as a whole was not fully implemented until 1 July 2007.
Secondly, in relation to what principles were breached, I would think that of the 12, there are question marks over half of them!
Fair enough but a "question mark" is hardly the same thing as a clear breach.

Brendan is absolutely right - if there's been a clear breach of contract (which appears to be the case here) there is no value in raising alleged breaches of wholly ambiguous principles. It won't get you anywhere.
 

elacsaplau

Frequent Poster
The General Principles and certain provisions carried forward from previous codes and handbooks (none of which are relevant here) came into effect on 1 August 2006. But the CPC as a whole was not fully implemented until 1 July 2007.
Well, aren't you the quick study?! That's what I've been saying all along!! :D

I think there is a clear breach of the CPC - no point in repeating this opinion further, is there?
 

RedOnion

Frequent Poster
In rejecting our claim , they recently acknowledged that they did not write to us and apologised 'for any
inconvenience caused ' !.
@Culainn
Did either the letter of offer or the mortgage contract mention a tracker rate, or being able to choose a tracker rate at the end of fixed term?

Ideally you want to find a way you are deemed impacted in the scope of the tracker redress. That's how you want it to be handled, as CB guidance means statute of limitations cannot applied by the banks.

If you bring a breach of contract case to FSPO for an action that wasn't taken 11 years later it will likely be rejected.

The scope of tracker examination includes (my emphasis): "customers had contractual rights to be offered the option of having Tracker Interest
Rates applied to their mortgage accounts at any stage during the Relevant Period and
were not offered the option of having Tracker Interest Rates applied to their accounts
at the appropriate and/or any stage during the Relevant Period"
 
Top