I certainly wouldn't jump to that conclusion.From reading the scope of the CB's review in press release i had a modicum of hope, but this thread seems to be implying that cases need to be similar in context to PTSB.....in my own case was on KBC Tracker , bombarded with letters as the rates flew up went up , moved to 5 year fixed..........lost tracker in process, several cases rejected by FSO which were word for word similar to my own,documentations wording was sufficient in those cases, so havent approached ombudmsan , probably still within 6 year period ...maybe i was honing in on the piece re banks practices, transparency informing you of implications etc ............heres hoping its all encompassing review of all practices around trackers . Fair play Brendan and Padraic for sticking with this for so long !
The relevant PTSB borrowers had a contractual entitlement to default back to a tracker rate on the expiry of their fixed terms and the High Court upheld decisions of the FSO that this entitlement captured circumstances where a borrower broke out of the fixed term early.
However, the Central Bank may well take the view that even where it is clear, on the face of it, that there is no similar contractual entitlement to default back to a tracker, the circumstances in which borrowers with trackers were persuaded to enter into fixed term contracts was such that it gave rise to a breach of the Consumer Protection Code. If the Central Bank does come to that conclusion, it seems probable that the Central Bank would order any relevant lenders (and KBC seem to be very much in the frame here) to permit borrowers to choose to revert back to a tracker rate, notwithstanding the terms of their contract and may, possibly, also order compensation to be paid to impacted borrowers under threat of financial sanction.
I don't have any particular insight into the Central Bank's current review but I definitely wouldn't give up all hope that it will not produce a favourable result for certain borrowers.