Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 54,768
See attached.
It doesn't make any difference to the outcome, but it does appear that, in some cases at least, the Panel is actually reading the appeals.
The last new bit makes no logical sense at all. I have now read it a few times and I can't see how x implies z.
| Original version | Latest version |
| The Panel was satisfied that arguably, the Bank was contractually obliged to offer her a tracker mortgage | The Panel finds that the bank was in breach of contract... |
| The Panel noted that the Bank withdrew tracker mortgages as a product | The Panel finds that the Bank withdrew tracker mortgages for all customers (old and new) |
| The Panel notes the contention that had the terms and conditions been clearer as to what would happen in the event that tracker mortgages for new customers were withdrawn, that they may have entered into a tracker mortgage at the time of entering into the contract. | |
| The Panel also noted the suggested alternative wording of a contract relating to the withdrawal of tracker mortgages for new customers. | |
| The Panel has already found that tracker mortgages at the then prevailing rate had been withdrawn for both old and new customers that had not already entered into a tracker mortgage. The Panel has also found that even if a tracker mortgage at the then prevailing rate had been offered to the borrower at the end of the fixed term period that the borrower would not have suffered any loss. As a result of these two findings, the the Panel further finds that the borrower's contention regarding the withdrawal of tracker mortgages for new clients does not support of justify her claim for compensation. |
It doesn't make any difference to the outcome, but it does appear that, in some cases at least, the Panel is actually reading the appeals.
The last new bit makes no logical sense at all. I have now read it a few times and I can't see how x implies z.
