Bank of Ireland Bank of Ireland paying me only 220 compensation

LS400

Frequent Poster
Messages
506
While I dont wish to minimize anyone's loss on this topic, but reading some of the post here, Id swear they are expecting the national lottery to knock on their door.
Get a grip here, you need to put it in perspective. Losses were suffered, some were minuscule and others were life changing. This thread has descended into a posse looking to whoop up support and talk each other into burning down the banks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
37,956
A few things need to be stressed here:

  • 90% of people who are getting redress wouldn't have a chance of getting it if they went to court. The Central Bank has persuaded the banks to go beyond their contractual liability.
  • Even if you went to court and won your case, you would probably just get a refund and interest. You would not get compensation.
  • The amount of compensation paid is only a down payment. It's not an offer as such. It will be paid automatically and you can appeal for more.
  • Only 25% of ptsb customers appealed the 10% paid to them in the last scheme.

And, by the way, I do think it's fair that people who were impacted should get compensation in proportion to the impact, whether they have a legal entitlement to it or not.

Brendan
 

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
37,956
Guys

Can we please disagree with each other without personalised comments such as accusing people who don't agree with you as being "nasty"?

This is a very important and interesting topic but the substance will get lost in the heat and noise.

Brendan
 

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
37,956
This thread has descended into a posse looking to whoop up support and talk each other into burning down the banks.
I wouldn't just blame the thread for that.

Virtually all the media commentary is the same.

I have tried to explain the difference between breach of contract and criminal activity to journalists and others and they accuse me of defending the banks.
 

Sarenco

Frequent Poster
Messages
5,530
There are so many different scenarios, that it is nigh on impossible for a ‘one size fits all’ calculation for compensation. I think this is just a starting point for banks. Some people will take it and move on. Others will feel that they deserve more and should present their case to the banks.
Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. I hope you didn't think I was suggesting otherwise.
I have an issue with BOI using the TRS refund to manipulate figures in their favour
Perhaps it would be worth waiting to see the workings before jumping to any conclusions.
 

Sarenco

Frequent Poster
Messages
5,530
I have tried to explain the difference between breach of contract and criminal activity to journalists and others and they accuse me of defending the banks.
I think it's now clear that many of the cases that the Central Bank are challenging wouldn't even constitute a breach of contract nor was there typically any lack of transparency or misrepresentation on the part of the lender.

It seems to me that in many of these cases, the Central Bank is challenging the banks on the basis of what it considered the relevant customers’ reasonable expectations at the time that they entered into the fixed rate contract.

I'm not saying that's necessarily the wrong approach by the Central Bank but that's obviously a subjective judgment. No court would decide a contractual dispute on that basis and there was (and is) no regulatory obligation on a lender to establish a borrowers reasonable expectations about anything.
 

moneymakeover

Frequent Poster
Messages
459
It's called consumer protection.

Your only complaint is that the central bank is being so successful.

Their approach is shaking those banks until all the accounts are back on the correct rate.

By the way did you admit you were wrong when it was announced BOI staff deserved to be back on tracker?
 

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
37,956
I think it's now clear that many of the cases that the Central Bank are challenging wouldn't even constitute a breach of contract
Agreed. I have also pointed out that disputes over contracts are commonplace and does not imply bad faith, much less criminal behaviour, by either side.

Brendan
 

Sarenco

Frequent Poster
Messages
5,530
Their approach is shaking those banks until all the accounts are back on the correct rate.
I wouldn't disagree with your description of the Central Bank's approach as a shake down.

The Governor of the Central Bank described its approach as "moral suasion" and a previous Governor described their approach as "principles based" regulation.

I happen to be of the opinion that we should all be entitled to enter into contracts with each other on such terms as we see fit and, provided there has been no breach of any law or regulation, we should expect the State to respect and uphold the terms of those contracts.

It may be old fashioned, but I happen to think that's an important freedom.

Consumer protection laws are vital in any modern society. However, the "rules of the game" should be clear so that market participants can be confident that their actions are in compliance with those rules.
Your only complaint is that the central bank is being so successful.
I'm not complaining about anything. I've already congratulated all impacted BOI borrowers.
By the way did you admit you were wrong when it was announced BOI staff deserved to be back on tracker?
Has there been such an announcement? Could you post a link?

I never expressed any opinion about whether or not BOI staffers "deserved" anything.

I did say that I didn't understand their argument - and I still don't. It seemed pretty clear from what was posted here that staffers consciously and deliberately switched from a tracker to a discounted staff variable rate before fixing at a discounted staff rate and had no contractual right to return to a tracker.

I've absolutely no problem with BOI staffers benefitting from the Central Bank's "moral suasion" - far from it. However, I don't think that's the way the Central Bank should discharge its statutory functions.
 

peemac

Frequent Poster
Messages
641
Many may not agree with me, but I've always liked Sarenco's comments - may not have agreed with them, but it has always been good to get a comprehensive view from someone looking at it from the banker's angle.

My father (a well respected legal person in his day) always said that there are two sides to every argument and to win, you need to know everything the other side will throw at you and be able to counteract it.

So with Sarenco mostly commenting "in favour" (for want of better description) of the banks and throwing out all the amateur non legalistic arguments I and others had, I and others know how lucky we are that the central bank has stepped in and threw a unbelievable curveball at the banks - something they didn't think would happen and thus have found it difficult to counteract.

For me, a refund of overpayment (est €65,000) and a further 10 years of 0.95% tracker will be sufficient in a way. A few grand compensation is relatively minor in the main aim of getting the tracker back.
 

Emma3003

Registered User
Messages
19
  • Even if you went to court and won your case, you would probably just get a refund and interest. You would not get compensation
I am no expert in this, but I remember when people were reclaiming bank charges in the UK, plus 8% flat rate interest, in line with what would be awarded if claim was successful in court. If that was the case for someone taking their case to court and being successful, that level of interest would be higher than the interest + compensation being given in most cases so far. Could they not also put a case forward for damages, if they had good evidence to back up their claim?

Perhaps it would be worth waiting to see the workings before jumping to any conclusions.
Fair point. I do suspect though that my request for a further breakdown will be denied, so I may never get to see the workings.
 

Sarenco

Frequent Poster
Messages
5,530
I am no expert in this, but I remember when people were reclaiming bank charges in the UK, plus 8% flat rate interest, in line with what would be awarded if claim was successful in court. .
The rate of interest on judgment debts (court interest) was reduced from 8% to 2% earlier this year.

You should definitely be entitled to see the workings.
 

todo

Frequent Poster
Messages
264
This is an interesting thread, and has taken an interesting direction in the last few posts.

For what its worth the following is just my opinion.

The banks are indefensible here.
Thanks to Padraic Kissane they've been found out.
Previous CEO's and executive are running for the hills in the hope that this won't follow them.
There is a huge imbalance of power between the bank and the customer, the banks had all the knowledge and set about to systemically remove customers from low tracker rates, this has been proven 30,000+ plus accounts will be restored.
Consumers have been failed by both the regulator and the FSO.
The banks weren't honouring contractual entitlements you can only imagine how much respect they had for the CPC.
I'm certain any trick, scheme, what ever, the bank could do get customers off trackers, they were willing todo it.

I think the most important thing we need to do is, ensure that consumers that the banks have tried to wear down, are inspired to push on and try to get some justice, follow up breaches of the CPC, don't lie down and let them get away with it.

As for compensation, it should be harsh, it needs to effect the bank share holders, so they can root out the folks that directed this debacle.
 
Last edited:

Mauritius

Frequent Poster
Messages
129
@todo sums up the whole disgusting scandal very succinctly:

The banks are indefensible here.
Thanks to Padraic Kissane they've been found out.
Previous CEO's and executive are running for the hills in the hope that this won't follow them.
There is a huge imbalance of power between the bank and the customer, the banks had all the knowledge and set about to systemically remove customers from low tracker rates, this has been proven 30,000+ plus accounts will be restored.
Consumers have been failed by both the regulator and the FSO.
The banks weren't honouring contractual entitlements you can imagine what how much respect they had for the CPC.
I'm certain any trick, scheme, what ever, the bank could do get customers off trackers, they were willing todo it.

One final point: will the banks continue to call all this an "error" or will they finally admit it was all a huge contrivance to get people off base low rates when the ECB rates fell to 0%? It continues to be a huge offence to use the word "error" when so many lives have been ruined. If it was all just an "error", why did the banks fight people to the FSO and all the way to the high courts? Surely if they had spotted the "error" surely they would have fixed it then? This was no error!

We have strength in numbers and we now have the ability to speak out and fight back.
 

MrEarl

Frequent Poster
Messages
1,727
Can anyone point out where compensation has been paid at all in cases where people have been overcharged?

All of the lenders have or will have Independent Appeals Panels in place and one can appeal any aspect of the refund or the compensation.

But I would imagine that you would have to show actual financial loss and not just annoyance.

Brendan

While drifting a little off topic....

Bank of Scotland decided to compensate certain Irish borrowers at 8% pa in instances where it acknowledged that it had miss-sold a loan linked to an investment product, several years ago.

I would guess that the current low rate environment might have influenced the rate they applied had this occurred more recently, but we are talking literally 7-8 year ago now.
 

joe351980

Frequent Poster
Messages
94
Agreed. I have also pointed out that disputes over contracts are commonplace and does not imply bad faith, much less criminal behaviour, by either side.

Brendan
Brendan to me this is much clearer than just a dispute over a contract. Would banks not have been willing to go to the high court if it was just a dispute. I'm sure with their legal teams they would have had a good case if it was a simple dispute.

I think banks tried and failed at this but are still reluctant to admit they broke contract. They're not refunding customers as a result of pressure from CB.
It was only at the steps of the high court that they sat up and took notice of costumers.

Will every 'dispute' customers have with regards, level of comp, margin, affected cohorts etc.. need to carry a threat court proceedings.
Banks wanted to limit the cost from day one. A court case would have had greater implications or they would have went through with it.
 

peemac

Frequent Poster
Messages
641
A court case would have had greater implications or they would have went through with it.
I read somewhere that banks represent about 35% of all legal fees paid in the country. In other words they are the legal profession's bread and butter and they will have the absolute best legal team avaiable. Something a member of the public would have zero chance of fighting.

You may not like that, I don't, but that's reality and once in the court legalistic interpretaions are what matter, not "what is the right thing to dao"

The Central Bank is simply the only game in town. They and they alone have the muscle to hurt the banks.
 
Last edited:

MrEarl

Frequent Poster
Messages
1,727
I can't really understand how there isn't criminal charges or sackings.
Why are you surprised, after all, this is Ireland so we don't sack people or prosecute them when they do wrong, or mess up - we pay them (handsomely) to leave !

Our government and our legal system need to fix the fundamentals, before anything will ever change in this country. Until such time as they do, it will be the SSDD I'm afraid.
 

james j

Frequent Poster
Messages
42
That's why we shouldn't be accepting any nominal payments from the bank while they don't accept responsibility let alone that there should be consequences. It is as if what's done is done and now let's get back to making bonuses and profit.
 
Top