Jim Stafford
Registered User
- Messages
- 631
failures to Stop the Harm to its customers during the conduct of the TME;
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.
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
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.
And that is the point, neither did AIB!
On what basis did you ask for a tracker rate?
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
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
We have found that the banks' Appeal Panels have generally been fair and reasonable = no need to initiate court action.Plus, you’d likely need to stump up to take a High Court Case - depending on the size of the claim made.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?