Central Bank and Ombudsman before the Oireachtas Finance Committee next Thursday

World class line by McGuinness...….

There's a vote in the house - so I think we should suspend to allow members to vote, to press their own buttons!

Interestingly, don't recall this direction previously!??
 
Last edited:
Hi elacs

Committee meetings are often suspended for a vote in the house. But they have never been told to press their own buttons before.

They are back

Brendan
 
Derville Rowland - Director General, Financial Conduct
Gráinne McEvoy - Director of Consumer Protection
Seána Cunningham - Director of Enforcement and Anti-Money Laundering

Started at 10.50 - so far she is just running down the clock telling them what they already know. This is not an update.

Maybe there is no update since the last time they were here. She should have just said this if that this the case.

OK - some new stuff
After the investigation started, they found that some customers had not properly stopped the harm. And this will be a factor in the sanctions process.

80 applicants for senior positions have been withdrawn [as the Central Bank did not consider that they met the fitness and probity requirements]

15 minute of precious time wasted.
 
Last edited:
Michael McGrath

Congratulates the Central Bank on their good work. Are we any closer to making individuals accountable?

Seána Cunningham: 19 individuals sanctioned - 7 barred from working in financial services - but none due to the tracker regime.

(They are far better than the banks at running down the clock and avoiding saying anything.)

McGrath
Outstanding Cohorts - AIB prevailing rate, EBS Variable Base Rate issue, ptsb discounted tracker, BoI staff

If the Ombudsman finds in favour of a customer on these issues

If for example, the Ombudsman finds that an AIB customer should have got a tracker rate of 1%

How does that work its way through to all customers for whom the principle applies?

Derville - completely misunderstands the question

If any issues do arise from cases
The feedback loop works well

If there is new information, of course, we will look at it

Where there is wider application, we would expect the banks to apply them

If we get new angles, of course, we will look at that.

McGrath

If the Ombudsman finds in favour of an AIB
And that case is representative of all customers
Are you saying that this decision will be applied

Derville
Seemed to say yes but is talking too fast

We will contact the lender but the lender will make their own decisions

Grainne: We have told the banks that we expect them to apply the decisions of the Ombudsman to the wider cohort.

[BB comment: At last they answer the actual question. ]

McGrath -

Have you had to threaten court action to get cooperation.

Central Bank: Yes


[There are 4 members and the chair present]
 
Last edited:
Fair play to Pearse.

Here, we have someone, who is not afraid to illustrate the ineptitude of the Central Bank.

The self-congratulatory approach of Rowville me rendre malade!!
 
Pearse Doherty

Asks about numbers

Derville Rowland

There might be more if individual complaints raise new issues which require a "read across"

Pearse
But you have signed off on their redress programme. Now you say that they must take their own case.

[Great question]

Derville

The scheme gave customers an option to appeal. If we closed down that appeal avenue, it wouldn't be fair.

[Good answer]

Pearse


Don't try to misinterpret my question
The CB was asleep at the wheel in the early days.
It took campaigners to get the CB to take action.
You closed your investigations and 33,000 cases became known later

The banks were the culprits
But where was the Central Bank?
The customers were on their own.

They forced the CB to take action

have you learned any lessons?

Derville


The only reason we go to work is on behalf of customers
The CB did a lot of work before this tracker examination took place

I challenged the decisions of the Ombudsman, as Director of Enforcement
We "front rolled" the Supreme Court challenge [ I must have this wrong]

Of course, we are a learning organisation so we continue to learn lessons.

We are only here to serve customers.
 
pearse

Did ptsb break the law?

Derville: The had 42 breaches of code - yes they broke they law.

pearse: has any employee of ptsb been sacked

Derville: I can't give any information beyond what we put in the public statement. You will have to ask ptsb

Pearse: has anyone been demoted?

Pearse
Have you referred any cases to the Garda

Seána
We talk to the Garda all the time.
 
Last edited:
Pearse

ptsb has settled court claims on trackers as long as the customer signs a confidentiality agreement.

These cases are the same as the ones before the Ombudsman who has asked me to bring this to your attention.

What is your attitude?

Derville

We have engaged with the Ombudsman. He must decide on the exchange of information between the lender and the borrower and nothing from outside.

Litigation settlements and confidentiality - three points

1) Not everyone wants to go to court. And so some people want to be private. No one wants to see a gagging clause to prevent us seeing that.
It's not ok that the regulator looking at the feedback loops to do the read-across. It won't stop in our way of asking to see the settlement.

We have asked all the lenders about the litigation that is ongoing. We are exercising oversight over all cases.

Pearse: Have you concluded that this does not affect a wider cohort of people -

Derville: We have taken no decision. They have reopened issues for us.
 
Last edited:
I can't believe what Horkan has just done. Rowville was waffling, Pearse was making sure she got to the point and then Horkan, as temporary chair, rewards Rowville for her waffle. I feel like reverting to French again!!
 
If there's a gag clause surely it should be that these 'settlement's' can be seen by the CB to scrutinise them, all you need to do is take out the names of the individuals. If you make everything a secret than neither the Ombudsman nor the Central Bank can scrutinise what the banks are up to. And it's not like they are to be trusted !
 
Joan Burton

Raises the BoI staff issue.

200 people affected.

1800 were settled but 200 people omitted.

Why are they not redressed?
[Took her 10 minutes to say that]

Derville: We put 2m accounts into scrutiny

We challenged hard where we thought there was a basis and we pushed our limits

But as we went through and we took the most pro-customer approach, we got lots of cases include which had been excluded before our involvement.

We asked the banks to look at the customer journey which was much wider than the actual contract and included advertising.

But I am sorry that some customers are disappointed. We could not find a basis to force the lenders to include them.

Lots of people did not get their trackers back.

The Ombudsman has a much wider filter than we have. He can look beyond the contract.

Grainne McEvoy: We pushed to our limits and beyond

Burton: you accepted that 1800 got their trackers back but 200 didn't.

Perhaps you could say in writing why the Ombudsman has more power

Derville : We looked at this BoI case and could find no basis for taking any further action. I will not be setting out the basis for our decsion in writing as it might not be helpful to them. The Ombudsman can make a decision and his criteria are different.

We have met with a group representing these customers. [ BB comment: Wow!]
 
Last edited:
elacsaplau said:
I can't believe what Horkan has just done. Rowville was waffling, Pearse was making sure she got to the point and then Horkan, as temporary chair, rewards Rowville for her waffle. I feel like reverting to French again!!
Click to expand...

Agree fully.

Pearse was getting somewhere. He should have been let pursue her until he got an answer.

The rules are stupid . Kierán O'Donnell was on for about 15 minutes and said nothing. It would have been much better if Pearse Doherty or Michael McGrath had that time.

Brendan
 
Bronte said:
If there's a gag clause surely it should be that these 'settlement's' can be seen by the CB to scrutinise them
Click to expand...

I got the impression that the Central Bank reviews these cases and are not subject to the confidentiality clause.

Brendan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register