AIB Central Bank Principles say that the lender must meet the borrower before issuing any redress for loss of ownership of home

RealDeal

Registered User
Messages
40
I think this document should be examined in light of the correspondence that AIB are sending to ensure that it is compliant eg. Section 5.7 states those who lost homes should be contacted by a manager with a view to a meeting being arranged before any cheque issues...

Finally got around to reading this properly.
There are some really interesting points in this, restoration of credit rating will definitely be a positive if it happens.
One conversation I'd be interested in having, if a face to face meeting does happen, would be why houses were allowed to go back to the bank any time after Dec 2015 seeing as this document had been produced...could have saved a lot of hassle for the bank and owners. Mine went back to them in March 2016.

Thank you for putting it up here @RealDeal
 
It goes back long before that AIB knew they had a problem and set a new tracker rate in 2013 to honour their legal obligation to anyone coming off the fixed rate then. Anyone know what date they became aware of their failure regarding 3.2/prevailing rate clause?
 
AIB "reintroduced" a prevailing tracker rate in December 2013.

But they did not admit at that stage that they did anything wrong. So the date is not relevant.

If you were looking for a "negligence" date it would have to be January 2020 when the Ombudsman issued the preliminary decision.

Brendan
 
It goes back long before that AIB knew they had a problem and set a new tracker rate in 2013 to honour their legal obligation to anyone coming off the fixed rate then. Anyone know what date they became aware of their failure regarding 3.2/prevailing rate clause?

[broken link removed]
I don't know if this answers your question but gives an idea of when they started taking things "seriously"
 
AIB "reintroduced" a prevailing tracker rate in December 2013.

But they did not admit at that stage that they did anything wrong. So the date is not relevant.

If you were looking for a "negligence" date it would have to be January 2020 when the Ombudsman issued the preliminary decision.

Brendan

I suppose I'm inferring that there was no other reason for them to introduce an uncompetitive tracker product in 2013 other than to fulfill the contractual rights of the prevailing rate cohort. It would indicate to me that they were aware of the obligation in 2013.
 
Hi gun

I would say that they became more conscious of the risk back in 2013. At that stage, they offered those whose fixed rates ended a very expensive tracker to shut off any risk from that time forward.


Brendan
 
Is it really as late as January 2020? That's the date when the FSPO spelt it out for them but they were in denial since 2018 when they claimed it was a "Service Failure" . I know it was the Central Bank forced them to acknowledge in 2018 but do we know who brought it to their attention? It seems unfair the fact that the bank chose to ignore it or deliberately misunderstood the claim allows them to push the clock forward for years.

The linked pdf includes the line
1.2 The lender is to ensure that any harm potentially being caused to impacted customers is stopped at the earliest possible time after a potential issue is identified

So that should push the date back from January 2020?
 
Hi gun

Anyone who suffered the loss of their home as a result of not being offered a tracker is covered. It does not matter when they lost their home.

That principle only says "When you have identified those affected and agreed that they were affected you should contact them immediately". AIB did not reach that stage until they agreed to roll out the Ombudsman's decision on the 18 April.

Brendan
 
The CB document says that “Customers who have lost possession of their properties (on a voluntary basis or otherwise) are to be contacted by senior members of the lender’s management team to explain the relevant issue in advance of the written correspondence issuing.” (My Italics).

I’m interested to see how customers who just sold their properties are dealt with, as the wording as quoted seems to capture such customers.
 
I can confirm i did get contacted by the bank prior to any letters being issued the last time round for 2 properties which the tracker was deemed causal to sale. It was just a quick 2 minute phone call.
 
I can confirm i did get contacted by the bank prior to any letters being issued the last time round for 2 properties which the tracker was deemed causal to sale. It was just a quick 2 minute phone call.
Did they arrange a face to face meeting (as they’re obliged to in the document)?
 
None yet, apart from the standard letter last week to say cheque was coming next month. No figures or any further details
 
Back
Top