AIB AIB has accepted the Ombudsman's decision and will be rolling it out to 5,900 impacted customers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks a million Brendan and everyone else that guided us with our appeal process. I'm delighted there is some light at the end of the tunnel but that said I don't for a minute think this is the end of it. Going forward for the remaining years of my mortgage with a tracker is what I will continue to fight for and I hope I'm not alone.
 
Majabu said:
Thanks a million Brendan and everyone else that guided us with our appeal process. I'm delighted there is some light at the end of the tunnel but that said I don't for a minute think this is the end of it. Going forward for the remaining years of my mortgage with a tracker is what I will continue to fight for and I hope I'm not alone.

Your not alone..
Click to expand...
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Hi Megafan

Is that a bad choice of words on your part?

They conceded nothing.

They have been dragged kicking and screaming on this issue for 5 years now. They conceded nothing.

They refused point blank that these customers were even impacted.
They refused to write to them telling them that they were not impacted.
They spoke down to me and Alan when we raised the issue over the last three AGMs.
They made a laughing stock of themselves in front of the Oireachtas Finance Committee defending the indefensible.
The Central Bank forced them to admit them to the Ombudsman and legal process.
The Appeals Panel cut and paste the AIB press release into their rejection of every appeal on the issue.
During the Ombudsman process they refused to mediate for settlement, but would only mediate "for clarification"
They robustly attacked every point made during the exchanges with the Ombudsman.
After the preliminary decision was issued and after they had announced that they were making a provision of €300m, they lodged a 10 page series of legal challenges to that preliminary decision.
They waited 35 days after the final decision was issued before they decided not to appeal to the High Court and concede defeat.

So that is all they conceded - defeat after years of conceding nothing else.

While at the same time claiming "We put the customer at the centre of everything".

Brendan
Click to expand...

Completely agree. Disappointing that we dont get our contractually entitled tracker back and the full refund of overcharged interest plus redress. We intend to wait for the offer and the terms before deciding. We remain convinced that AIB is in breach of contract here and as I say we will wait until we receive further correspondence from the FSPO and AIB but we will weigh up if we might still take this to the High Court. I work in a regulated financial services provider and I am aghast as to the treatment and behaviour of AIB - concisely set out by Brendan above. I cannot imagine how they believe this is ok. If they treated their customers with a modicum of respect the bottom line will take care of itself. I am equally surprised that the Central Bank have not taken a more direct role. The approach seems to be to wait and see what happens with the FSPO process and eventually make some from of concession. My experience for much smaller issues is to feel the full weight of the CBI which I have no problem with. I am wondering out loud if the organs of state believe that facing the issue with humility and truth would be a cost which their main shareholder is not willing to bear. They should think again. None the less I echo the views expressed in terms of gratitude to Brendan and the likes of Charile who remain consumer champions.
 
Hi Brendan

Have you seen the full written response from the ombudsman? For those of us who have not, there seems to be some unanswered questions.

IF so, then in your view did the ombudsman set out good logic in justifying his decision?
Please note I am not looking for detailed answers to the below. But rather, I am wondering in your opinion, if the ombudsman broadly speaking did a good job in justifying his position?

Questions for me are:
- Why could he not decide on an appropriate prevailing rate?
- Did he give a good reasoning for the 12% figure?
- DId he give good reasoning as to why he did not restore Karen back onto the original tracker?
- Has he set out any broad terms in taking care of people who lost their property? (This seems nigh on impossible to me if we cannot determine how much people were overcharged in the first instance). OR was this not referenced at all given it did not impact Karen?
 
Last edited:
Agree with Majabu and Adobe1 here, we will wait to see what AIB and the FSPO say exactly especially in relation to the tracker. That remains a major sticking point for us also and we may also have to look to the courts.
 
Hi Brendan,

firstly gratitude to you for your tireless efforts on behalf of people. Well done!

in relation to the ombudsman ruling the order was to pay
1 - 12% approx capital write down of mortgage value
2 - overcharge of interest (approx 4%) to nominated bank account.

Is there further compensation payment under consideration - will an additional “compensation” payment be made to karen or is this implicit within 12% capital write down above?
 
Delighted with the compensation but it sounds as if I will continue to get overcharged for the remaining 20 years of my mortgage unless the cohort is moved to a tracker rate. I'm surprised AIB have to compensate us for overcharging and can then continue to overcharge after the judgement.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Hi Megafan

Is that a bad choice of words on your part?

They conceded nothing.

They have been dragged kicking and screaming on this issue for 5 years now. They conceded nothing.

They refused point blank that these customers were even impacted.
They refused to write to them telling them that they were not impacted.
They spoke down to me and Alan when we raised the issue over the last three AGMs.
They made a laughing stock of themselves in front of the Oireachtas Finance Committee defending the indefensible.
The Central Bank forced them to admit them to the Ombudsman and legal process.
The Appeals Panel cut and paste the AIB press release into their rejection of every appeal on the issue.
During the Ombudsman process they refused to mediate for settlement, but would only mediate "for clarification"
They robustly attacked every point made during the exchanges with the Ombudsman.
After the preliminary decision was issued and after they had announced that they were making a provision of €300m, they lodged a 10 page series of legal challenges to that preliminary decision.
They waited 35 days after the final decision was issued before they decided not to appeal to the High Court and concede defeat.

So that is all they conceded - defeat after years of conceding nothing else.

While at the same time claiming "We put the customer at the centre of everything".

Brendan
Click to expand...

I can sense your utter frustration and anger from this post. I hope you and yours have not been worn down too much by being involved in this, and hopefully you derive a level of satisfaction from the result that makes your commitment feel worthwhile, at some level.

Once again, thanks for all your hard work. I've never "banked" on a positive outcome. I haven't suffered to the extent that others have. Some of the posts make for hard reading. I hope people take comfort in this, and those that are determined to pursue for a more equitable outcome are successful.
 
zxcvbnm said:
Hi Brendan

Have you seen the full written response from the ombudsman? For those of us who have not, there seems to be some unanswered questions.

IF so, then in your view did the ombudsman set out good logic in justifying his decision?
Please note I am not looking for detailed answers to the below. But rather, I am wondering in your opinion, if the ombudsman broadly speaking did a good job in justifying his position?

Questions for me are:
- Why could he not decide on an appropriate prevailing rate?
- Did he give a good reasoning for the 12% figure?
- DId he give good reasoning as to why he did not restore Karen back onto the original tracker?
- Has he set out any broad terms in taking care of people who lost their property? (This seems nigh on impossible to me if we cannot determine how much people were overcharged in the first instance). OR was this not referenced at all given it did not impact Karen?
Click to expand...

You will just have to wait for him to publish his report and then you can make those judgements yourself.

Brendan
 
Re the "rough" figure of 4%. On a few occasions since we came off the fixed in 2011 we have paid into the mortgage to reduce the term. How would this impact the cash sum element, the 4%? If it impacts it a lot, I'd be tempted to pursue it further, we had 2 mortgages, same capital, one split, one fixed for 3 years. We never paid down on the tracker as it was cheap.
 
David_Dublin said:
I can sense your utter frustration and anger from this post. I hope you and yours have not been worn down too much by being involved in this, and hopefully you derive a level of satisfaction from the result that makes your commitment feel worthwhile, at some level.
Click to expand...

David

Thanks for your concern. I am in great form and have derived huge satisfaction from it.

I am not frustrated at all.

But I am really angry with AIB. They will dismiss this as a legacy issue but it's not. The mistake made in 2008 was a bad mistake but understandable in the context of what was happening at the time.

The current management and the current board should not escape personal censure from the Central Bank for the way the tried to escape their liability arising from that mistake.

Every time I heard them say "We put the customers at the centre of everything" they remotivated me to see this through.

Every time I saw the stupid arguments such as "It was not a breach of contract, it was a service failure" it doubled my motivation.

Brendan
 
David_Dublin said:
How would this impact the cash sum element, the 4%?
Click to expand...

I don't see that it will?

If you had a mortgage of €200k they will write down your mortgage by €24k.

They will work out what interest they charged you on the €24k and pay that to you.

I had not considered the complication of the split mortgage. In fairness to AIB, they can say that you paid no interest on the €24k as it was warehoused.

Brendan
 
Brendan I would just like to say a huge thank you to you for pursuing this, and also well done on the successful outcome. I hope you are very proud!
 
Thank you Brendan for all your efforts throughout the years.

You're appetite and perseverance to achieve what was right for many, who would be otherwise oblivious to the situation, is admirable.

I hope and expect you are proud of your efforts and I thank you for fighting this battle on behalf of all those who did not realise it was ongoing.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
AIB is applying the finding to other customers in the same cohort.

The Ombudsman insists that only he can publish the decision.

But this is a summary of what he found.

AIB did breach the contract and should have offered a tracker mortgage to Karen.
AIB was wrong to say what the rate would have been - their report could, at best, conclude what it should have been.
He could not decide what the rate would have been either.
He felt that, under the circumstances, it would be unfair to AIB to give Karen a tracker for the remainder of her mortgage.

As a fair balance, he ordered AIB to write down the balance of Karen's mortgage by 12% of the balance on the day she rolled off the fixed rate and should have been offered a tracker in 2010.

And to pay her, into her nominated account, the interest charged on that write off since 2010. That amounted to roughly a further 4% of the balance as of October 2010.
Click to expand...

It seems therefore to be an increased breach of contract payment rather than the ombudsman accepting the prevailing rate argument. Might be worth continuing with cases to the ombudsman based on other issues such as contra proferentem etc.
 
Last edited:
blue_steel said:
It seems therefore to be an increased breach of contract payment rather than the ombudsman accepting the prevailing rate argument. Might be worth continuing with cases to the ombudsman based on other issues such as contra proferentem etc.
Click to expand...

Hiya Blue_steel, will you explain contra proferentem ?
This seem very interesting?
 
I agree!! Think AIB are getting away lightly but having said that I'm grateful for what Brendan has done for us. Such great work. Is there a chance of some of us bringing it further though and having a good case ???? Ie stress, no quality of life for so long because no money to do anything only keep a roof over our heads!!!!
 
AIB STAFF 2010 said:
Hiya Blue_steel, will you explain contra proferentem ?
This seem very interesting?
Click to expand...
I'm no expert. I can send you what I included in my appeal to the FSPO if you like. The case is still under consideration. I will direct message you.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top