Bank of Ireland BOI - claiming mortgage account not impacted

Messedabout

Registered User
Messages
4
i have a mortgage with BOI (originally ICS), was on tracker to begin with, fixed for a period, never offered tracker rate after fixed period. Bank claimed they wrote to me about this at the time and offered the tracker rate - I dispute ever receiving such correspondence - and then alleged as I didn't respond that I was time barred from having the tracker rate applied. After much to-ing and fro-ing in 2014, in the context of settling arrears and in respect of which the bank took me to court (based on inflated incorrect arrears calculated on the non-tracker rate), I brought a case to the FSO. FSO did sweet FA, but bank settled in 2014. Overstated interest redressed greatly reduced alleged arrears and I paid balance due. Have kept completely up to date since.

When the CBI tracker examination was announced I expected some follow up from the bank as the settlement did not include any compensation. After hearing nothing, I contacted the bank late last year. Finally got a letter in the last few days stating that "the Tracker Mortgage Examination framework clearly sets out that compensation is only paid on accounts which have been identified as impacted within the current examination and will not be applied to accounts redressed outside of the examination" [my emphasis] and as my account was redressed outside of the current examination the redress and compensation framework does not apply to my account.

I'm well used to the bank stonewalling but this response to my mind beggars belief. I see absolutely nothing in the CBI materials that excludes accounts redressed before the examination. In fact my read of the materials is absolutely to the contrary, in that it is specifically referenced that what is to be examined is to determine whether contractual rights and obligations regarding Tracker Interest Rates were adhered to and/or honoured during the period up to the end of 2015. I'm completely at a loss to understand how my account can be considered not to be impacted, when the bank reinstated my rate to tracker in 2014 after continually refusing to do so. To my mind, the fact that the bank redressed the situation of itself confirms that the contractual rights and obligations were not adhered to or honoured, and my account must be impacted. Any other conclusion (such as the bank's) would be bizarre.

Am I missing something here? If I've completely misunderstood what the CBI tracker examination is all about, so be it, but my view is the complete opposite to the bank's. I don't see any exclusion in the materials (certainly nothing that is "clearly set out") for accounts redressed before the end of 2015, and in any case if the bank's position is correct then because I identified the matter and successfully fought to have the tracker rate reinstated I'm in a worse position than someone who either didn't notice the matter or was unsuccessful in having the rate reinstated. My work in obtaining redress in 2014 would now stand against me.

Can anyone shed any light on this? Am I excluded from compensation under the CBI examination, and if so where do the CBI materials provide for this?
 
So the saga continues... I went to the Ombudsman, mediation process started in Autumn 2019, bank then made an additional compensation payment of c.€3.7k (approx. 10% of overcharge from 2011 - 2015), which included a small amount of additional remediation also, and withdrew from the mediation process. I then had to appeal the bank compensation before getting the case back to the Ombudsman in summer 2020. Now, out of the blue, the bank is offering a final settlement amount of an additional €3.5k.

I don't know what to do about it. I've fought tooth and nail for the last 8 years, firstly to get back on my tracker, and then seeking to have the 2015 CBI mandated compensation and professional fee payment provided to me.

I firmly believe that I'm right - that the 2015 CBI mandate applies to me, despite the bank and the independent appeals panel taking a different view. The bank paid me interest of c.€1k in December 2018 for "interest I could have earned on the amount overpaid". In my simple way of looking at things, that itself confirms that my situation was not fully redressed when the 2015 CBI mandate issued, so how can the bank's position that the matter is out of scope of the 2015 framework be correct??

The whole situation is a mess. The CBI mandate, in my view, is completely meaningless in my case where the bank refuses to give compensation and payment for professional fee even though my account was not corrected when the 2015 framework issued.

I got €5k compensation from the independent appeals panel, in respect of my appeal concerning the 2011 bank review (my account was overcharged from 2009 - 2011, corrected in the 2011 review, but I wasn't put back on the tracker in 2011 as I contend I never got the letter providing that option, and only got it back in 2015, so a separate overcharge from 2011 - 2015). Bizarrely, while the appeals panel said I was out of scope of the 2015 mandate, and so the decision only related to the 2011 review, the compensation awarded referenced my distress in facing legal proceedings (which related to the separate 2011 - 2015 overcharging which they said was out of scope!).

So I've got €5k compensation from the appeals panel (for the 2009 - 2011 overcharge but reference to the legal proceedings that didn't relate to that), €3.7k compensation in 2019 from the bank (although they continue to contend that I'm not within scope of the 2015 framework), and now they are offering an additional €3.5k, so if I accept I'll have received in total over €12k compensation. The total overcharge was €45k, and I faced legal proceedings, including having to be before a judge in court in 2013.

I'm in a quandary. While the legal proceedings were based on arrears (c.€56k) that arose in part because of the overcharge (c. €27k) the balance was due to me not paying, so my hands aren't clean here.

The fact that the FSPO decisions seems to vary widely, that they can't give compensation for stress etc., the level of compensation to date that I've received and the fact that my hands aren't clean gives me concern that any FSPO award will not be as favourable as the settlement offer.

That said, I think that my case is clear and why would the bank now be offering additional compensation if it thought it would succeed.

Would appreciate any thoughts.
 
Let's park whether you are part of the CBI review or not for the moment and look at the meat of your complaint.

The total overcharge was €45k, and I faced legal proceedings, including having to be before a judge in court in 2013.

I'm in a quandary. While the legal proceedings were based on arrears (c.€56k) that arose in part because of the overcharge (c. €27k) the balance was due to me not paying, so my hands aren't clean here.

You were in arrears of €56k
The overcharged interest was €27k
So your arrears would have been €29k anyway?

I don't understand your comment that the total overcharge was €45k, but I assume that when they issued legal proceedings you were in "true" arrears of €29k

Your total overcharge was €45k.
Under the Central Bank scheme, if I recall correctly, BoI paid 10% of the overcharge, so you would have got €4,500 automatically.

But you are getting 12k.

I would say to you "Well done! You have done very well, grab it with both hands."


I would doubt that you would get much more than you are being offered.

I have not seen any cases of huge compensation where the bank and the Appeals Panel rejected paying any.

The Ombudsman often classifies a case as "fully upheld" and when you read it, the borrower is claiming €100k and gets €5k extra.

Brendan
 
Last edited:
my hands aren't clean gives me concern that any FSPO award will not be as favourable as the settlement offer.

Bank of Ireland didn't issue as many repossession cases as the other banks.

AIB and ptsb issued them just to comply with the targets for resolution set by the Central Bank.

BoI only issued them when all other means had failed. I would say that this would be clearly the case when the Ombudsman reviews your file.

I am guessing that the legal action would have been taken against you anyway because you were paying little or nothing. If someone is paying nothing, it does not matter if the rate is .5% or 5%.

Half of all legal action was against people on tracker mortgages.
 
Last edited:
Whether your case comes within the Central Bank TME or not doesn't seem that relevant to me.

You got more compensation than the TME would have given you.
You were allowed go to the Independent Appeals Panel

So what would be the point of winning on this issue? What would the benefit be?
 
Many thanks Brendan, all that is very helpful indeed. Just to clarify the legal proceedings were on the basis of the overcharged arrears, not the lesser "true" arrears, which presented a very different case, and there is a typo in my post, the overcharge was 37k, so my true arrears were 19k.

I still think the bank's approach makes a mockery of the Central Bank TME. Surely the reason for the TME was to ensure that (a) those who were denied their tracker would get a payment towards getting professional advice so that they could be appropriately informed as to their case, and (b) the account was properly remediated, and (c) appropriate compensation was given, all promptly. I haven't had any contribution towards advice and my account only got remediated in December 2018, 3 years after the CBI mandate, and the compensation I've received has been on the drip, in part from the appeals board (who only looked at the 2009 -2011 overcharging).

It's been 6 years since the mandate issued. I've had to fight all the way to get something, and that was after a prolonged fight in 2013/14/15 to get my tracker reinstated. The first compensation offered was in December 2018 for €60!

I think that my case goes to show that you have to stick to your guns to get anywhere. I've managed to get the compensation only by being persistent and continuing to fight my case and never giving up. Yes, my hands weren't clean but the bank's conduct in my case has been absolutely disgraceful , including dragging out my case as they have. There must be good reason to my arguments, otherwise why would the bank look to settle, and why couldn't they have made the same offer when I raised this with them over 5 years ago in 2016?!

Anyway, I've had enough of it all, I'm exhausted with it and now just want to get on with my life.
 
Just to clarify the legal proceedings were on the basis of the overcharged arrears, not the lesser "true" arrears, which presented a very different case, and there is a typo in my post, the overcharge was 37k, so my true arrears were 19k.

Your true arrears were €19k.
What was your payment record like?
What was your engagement with the bank like?

It would be unusual, but not unheard of, for BoI to take legal action against someone who was paying a decent amount and who was engaging with them. In almost all of the cases I have seen where the BoI took action, the borrower was ducking and diving and paying little or nothing.

If you were fully engaging and paying something every month and had filled in the SFS and they said "Sorry we can't find a sustainable solution" then you would have a case for compensation. Would the Ombudsman award you more than €12k? Who knows, but I doubt it.
 
(a) those who were denied their tracker would get a payment towards getting professional advice so that they could be appropriately informed as to their case,

How much did you spend on professional advice?

How much did BoI pay automatically? I tried to find it online but couldn't. As far as I remember, it was quite small. It was either €500 + VAT or €1,000 + VAT.

Not very big in the context of the compensation you have received.

Brendan
 
Back
Top