Claiming additional compensation if the bank did not "stop the harm"

J

Jim Stafford

Registered User
Messages
631
Brendan Burgess said:
failures to Stop the Harm to its customers during the conduct of the TME;
Click to expand...

Brendan

That is a useful summary of the factors considered.

We are starting to see a trickle of compensation cheques coming out in relation to "stop the harm" scenarios i.e. cases where banks persisted in legal enforcement even though they had been instructed by the Central Bank not to do so whilst they were assessing tracker cases.

The Central Bank have alluded to these type of scenarios but they have not yet quantified how many such cases will be entitled to compensation. Technically, the initial compensation cheques for the wrong rate of interest was purely based on a mathematical calculation of the interest charges, and did not take into account consequential losses etc.


Jim Stafford
 
Hi Jim

I moved this from the other thread as this relates to people making claims for compensation and the other thread was about how the Central Bank determines the fine.

Here are the principles:


Principles for lenders when relevant issues are identified for redress
When a relevant issue is identified, lenders to adhere to the following principles:

1. Stopping further harm to impacted customers

1.1. The Central Bank has already set out its expectation of lenders in respect of stopping the harm
for potential issues as part of its communication of 23 June 2015 and subsequent follow-up
communications.

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.

1.3. In addition, the lender is to cease charging the incorrect rates of interest to potentially
impacted cohorts of customer accounts, to apply correct rates of interest to those accounts
after each cohort is identified and to inform the Central Bank in advance of doing so.
 
Last edited:
In my experience, the lenders have been fairly good at "stopping the harm."

The exception was the first ptsb redress scheme where the Central Bank insisted that ptsb get the permission of the borrower to reduce their rate to the tracker rate. I commented at the time that this was crazy, and that ptsb should not need permission from a borrower to reduce the mortgage rate from 4.5% to 1.5%. But that was not ptsb's fault.

I have seen many possession cases in court, where the lender sought an adjournment as the case was being reviewed to see if it was impacted by the tracker review.

But let's take the AIB Prevailing Rate cases. AIB denied that there was an issue. While I did not agree, they were entitled to take this position until the Ombudsman or a court found otherwise. Should they have stopped enforcement action against customers in this group? They did stop when the Ombudsman issued the Preliminary Decision in January and, to be fair to AIB, I think that was the earliest they could have stopped.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Hi Jim

I moved this from the other thread as this relates to people making claims for compensation and the other thread was about how the Central Bank determines the fine.

Here are the principles:


Principles for lenders when relevant issues are identified for redress
When a relevant issue is identified, lenders to adhere to the following principles:

1. Stopping further harm to impacted customers

1.1. The Central Bank has already set out its expectation of lenders in respect of stopping the harm
for potential issues as part of its communication of 23 June 2015 and subsequent follow-up
communications.

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.

1.3. In addition, the lender is to cease charging the incorrect rates of interest to potentially
impacted cohorts of customer accounts, to apply correct rates of interest to those accounts
after each cohort is identified and to inform the Central Bank in advance of doing so.
Click to expand...


@Brendan
I could be wrong, but as the investigation in to Trackers started in 2015, should the bank, by right, have stopped any pressure on people in relation to mortgage difficulties until they could be ruled out of the cohort or otherwise?

Just an idea in relation to 'stopping further harm'...had they paused things for a while, I really don't think I'd be where I am. Iost my house in 2016, a few months pause would have changed everything.
 
The stop the harm principle refers to cases where the bank had agreed that they should have given you a tracker and they should take immediate action to stop the harm while they are sorting it out. So, for example, they should reduce the mortgage rate to the tracker rate.

It does not meant that they should stop a repossession because the person claims to be impacted.

They had investigated your account and deemed it not impacted. Now they have agreed that the Prevailing Rate cases were impacted. And they should stop the harm on any of these cases.

Having said all that, if you claimed that you were entitled to a tracker back in 2016 and you can show that the repayments you were then making would have resulted in a sustainable mortgage, then you should invoke the principle.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
The stop the harm principle refers to cases where the bank had agreed that they should have given you a tracker and they should take immediate action to stop the harm while they are sorting it out. So, for example, they should reduce the mortgage rate to the tracker rate.

It does not meant that they should stop a repossession because the person claims to be impacted.

They had investigated your account and deemed it not impacted. Now they have agreed that the Prevailing Rate cases were impacted. And they should stop the harm on any of these cases.

Having said all that, if you claimed that you were entitled to a tracker back in 2016 and you can show that the repayments you were then making would have resulted in a sustainable mortgage, then you should invoke the principle.

Brendan
Click to expand...

Ok, thank you for that.

"It does not meant that they should stop a repossession because the person claims to be impacted." I didn't know I was impacted at the time, that was made clear in 2018 when I got the letter.
I can show that had I been on the tracker at the time, the mortgage would have been affordable, yes. It's something I tried to argue with them for nearly 2 years up to 2016, I asked for the tracker rate repeatedly in my dealings with them but that was always ignored.

I'll see what they say anyway,
Thanks Brendan
 
Nailligo said:
I didn't know I was impacted at the time, that was made clear in 2018 when I got the letter.
Click to expand...

And that is the point, neither did AIB!

Nailligo said:
I can show that had I been on the tracker at the time, the mortgage would have been affordable, yes. It's something I tried to argue with them for nearly 2 years up to 2016, I asked for the tracker rate repeatedly in my dealings with them but that was always ignored.
Click to expand...

On what basis did you ask for a tracker rate?
 
Brendan Burgess said:
And that is the point, neither did AIB!


On what basis did you ask for a tracker rate?
Click to expand...

And that is the point, neither did AIB!

- I understand that, I was just wondering at the time, when an investigation was opened in to mortgages affected within a certain timescale, would it not have been 'easy' for AIB to collate a list of customers and pause any proceedings against them. I appreciate these things take time. I just feel as they were dealing with a specific window of time there were only so many of us in that boat. And I know I'm probably over simplifying things so forgive me for that if I am.

On what basis did you ask for a tracker rate?

- When I was asking the bank for assistance in making my mortgage affordable, even for a year or two as I was dealing with the loss of the deceased co-borrowers financial input, I offered suggestions (on the banks request) as to what would make things easier for me.
I suggested the tracker rate as that would have made the mortgage affordable for me.
 
There were and are lots of people claiming trackers who have no case. AIB thought you had not case, until the Ombudsman decided otherwise.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
There were and are lots of people claiming trackers who have no case. AIB thought you had not case, until the Ombudsman decided otherwise.

Brendan
Click to expand...

'There were and are lots of people claiming trackers who have no case. ' I'm not sure what you mean by this, was it not the case that AIB were withholding the tracker from people anyway? AIB asked me to come up with suggestions, not one was taken on board, they were the ones who made the call for me to surrender the house.
Aren't people getting trackers now?
It seems plenty of people had a case at the time. Some mortgages were unaffordable because the interest rates were too high not because people chose not to pay them.
If the Ombudsman decided AIB were incorrect then I wasn't wrong to at least ask, was I?

I'm just wondering if I can use that as part of my discussion now with AIB in relation to further compensation with regard to losing a house?
 
Nailligo

I just can't follow your argument.

You asked AIB for a tracker and they said no.

Did you make a case for a tracker? Did you say that they should have given you one when your fixed rate ended as that was what the contract said?

It's quite clear and logical to me.
When a bank concedes that a person should have been on a tracker, then they must stop the hurt immediately.
If they are reviewing an account to see if it is affected, then they would put repossession on hold.
But when a bank determines that you were not impacted, then they were not under any obligation to stop trying to enforce their security.

There is nothing in what you have said which suggests that you should have been on a tracker.
If you put in a formal complaint that you were wrongly denied a tracker and if you then submitted a complaint to the Ombudsman , then I would expect that AIB might well have put the case on hold.

But you don't seem to have done any of that.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Nailligo

I just can't follow your argument.

You asked AIB for a tracker and they said no.

Did you make a case for a tracker? Did you say that they should have given you one when your fixed rate ended as that was what the contract said?

It's quite clear and logical to me.
When a bank concedes that a person should have been on a tracker, then they must stop the hurt immediately.
If they are reviewing an account to see if it is affected, then they would put repossession on hold.
But when a bank determines that you were not impacted, then they were not under any obligation to stop trying to enforce their security.

There is nothing in what you have said which suggests that you should have been on a tracker.
If you put in a formal complaint that you were wrongly denied a tracker and if you then submitted a complaint to the Ombudsman , then I would expect that AIB might well have put the case on hold.

But you don't seem to have done any of that.

Brendan
Click to expand...

Ok, I don't seem to be able to explain myself at all Brendan.
I lost my house because I couldn't afford it. If I had been on the tracker rate at the time, I could have.
I didn't know at the time that I should have had the option of a tracker because nobody did, they weren't offered to us...we only found out about those things in 2018 when we all got a letter. Did anyone else know?
I brought it up as a possible option to make my repayments affordable (along with interest only etc) with the bank in 2013 and repeatedly up to 2016 before I lost my house because I really didn't want to have to surrender my house and go in to Insolvency but the bank seemed determined to only go one way in my case.

I don't know what you mean by the bank determining me as not impacted, why would I have got a letter in 2018? And why did I get a cheque in the last couple of weeks if I wasn't impacted? I was, clearly.

I haven't sent in the complaint just now to AIB because I was asking about the option to add this 'stop further harm' angle, but it seems to be complicating things and either you're misunderstanding me or my way of asking a question is more confusing than I would have hoped.

Thank you
 
Back in 2016, you made no argument or complaint that you had a contractual right to a tracker.

AIB did not consider you impacted at the time.

The fact that you requested a tracker is irrelevant. You might as well have asked for your mortgage to be written down by 50%. You had no right.

The Ombudsman issued a preliminary decision in January 2020. After that, AIB had to take the precautionary step of stopping all repossession proceedings.

But before that, there was no obligation on them to enforce their security.

Brendan
 
My two cents on the general principle of ‘stopping the harm’.

Brendan is right that this relates to moving customers onto the right rate quickly rather than addressing damages arising from their failure.

The Principles for Tracker Redress from the Central Bank, with associated Appendicies sets out how the Banks should act in relation to those impacted or likely to be impacted.

This includes; pausing sales of homes in arrears, assigning a liaison officer, notifying the customer they are or likely to be impacted.

In my case all this was ignored by the Bank who waited 3 years to admit the overcharging and took no other prescribed action.

You could enforce your rights as the law was updated to allow citizens to sue Banks / Building Socs for failing to observe regulation. It’s unclear if the Principles for Tracker Redress (agreed to by all relevant institutions in Ireland), is considered regulation.

Plus, you’d likely need to stump up to take a High Court Case - depending on the size of the claim made.
 
TomTron said:
Plus, you’d likely need to stump up to take a High Court Case - depending on the size of the claim made.
Click to expand...
We have found that the banks' Appeal Panels have generally been fair and reasonable = no need to initiate court action.

If claimants are unhappy with the Appeal Panel's decision, then they can appeal, at no cost, to the Financial Services & Pensions Ombudsman.

Jim Stafford
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top