Courts award compensation to PTSB customers

If I understand this correctly, PTSB is also the creditor. See journal.ie

So what it means is PTSB caused them to go bankrupt and now gets away with giving them a few grand.

And PTSB get 30% back of what they pay out in most cases!
 
newirishman said:
Nobody went bankrupt just because he didn't keep/get a tracker rate on a PPR mortgage.
Click to expand...

How do you know? The cost of my own is approx €450 per month how do you know that wasn't the difference between bankruptcy and not? How do you know they didn't decide that that was the easier option than the bank continually hounding them? Have a little respect before you make such grandiose statements.
 
notabene said:
How do you know? The cost of my own is approx €450 per month how do you know that wasn't the difference between bankruptcy and not? How do you know they didn't decide that that was the easier option than the bank continually hounding them? Have a little respect before you make such grandiose statements.
Click to expand...

If you have followed the reports of court proceedings esp. PPR repossessions especially here on this forum it should be clear that it is highly unlikely that someone will lose their home - never mind forced into bankruptcy - if a significant portion of interest + principal is being paid off especially if it is the PPR.
Which, in a case of say 1% vs 4.5% interest rate, would very much be the case. You are I am sure aware of options like warehousing, interest only periods, etc, and the very special protection of the "home" in Irish courts and society.
We have no information about the overall financial situation of the people that went into bankruptcy. Neither the independent article nor thejournal.ie elaborates on the details (which is no surprise) so I am making an educated guess here.

Just in terms of your assessment of respect: really?

I have greatest respect for people who go down the bankruptcy route, it usually means they face up to reality and want to get things sorted and themselves out of a financial mess. Especially with the short'ish time frames (1-3 years) it is often the better, and cheaper, solution. Do not forget that creditors lose most in those cases, so it is usually the last resort.
 
newirishman said:
Nobody went bankrupt just because he didn't keep/get a tracker rate on a PPR mortgage.
Click to expand...

I am not one for making sweeping generalisations so there is no way you can know enough about any of these cases to state that.

I am sure you read the article and will have noticed the following :

"In each of the cases PTSB was the primary creditor..."

If it was not the actions of PTSB that led to the bankruptcy of each person/case, who else could it have been? A credit union or perhaps credit card debt or outstanding car finance?

The case also includes BTL and PPR trackers. Some holders of BTL loans were forced into or chose bankruptcy. The issue here is that maybe the loss of tracker triggered a bankruptcy that otherwise would not have happened.
 
Yes, I agree with newirishman, the fact that these borrowers were declared bankrupt has not helped their plight. By the letter of the law, these bankrupts are not legally entitled to any compensation whatsoever. Outstanding creditors get first bite at any compensation awards to bankrupts within the bankruptcy period. However given the fact that PTSB are most likely their largest creditor respectively and has agreed the said outcome is, dare I say it, probably the fairest outcome in this particular situation that the bankrupts could have expected.

Now, if it could be proven that PTSB actions ( with regard to it's overcharging and unlawfully changing borrowers off tracker mortgages ) were a direct cause of the said bankruptcies , then I agree with the other posters that the said offers are derisory. If this cause / effect could have been proven to the High Court, then significant damages would have been awarded, obviously this was not the case.

We will have to await Mr Kissane's High Court case to see what the courts will award in instances were borrowers' PPR's or BTL's have been repossessed as a result of the actions of PTSB. I would have thought PTSB would settle these case types due to the legal costs alone, as the bank has already admitted liability; all that is left to agree is a fair settlement offer: 25,000 euro compensation for loss of BTL properties and 50,000 euro compensation for loss of PPR properties is certainly not that. Senior and junior counsel in this Country do not come cheap, no matter what happens, PTSB will have to pay Mr Kissane's legal teams' costs. PTSB is owned by the State, so guess what, the taxpayer pays yet again. Someone in some Government Department has got to take a look at this situation!
 
Newirishman,

This individual will have to prove that the bankruptcy was a direct result of the actions of PTSB ( with respect to their skullduggery regarding tracker mortgages ). If he / she is successful, then I see a substantial court award in the offing.
If he lost a BTL property he can claim a plethora of damages, with future loss of profits being assessed by loss of opportunity.

If the borrower is only taking action now, we will have to wait another couple of years before we get to plenary hearing!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would have thought the more proximate cause of the bankruptcy in that case was the fact that the borrower unfortunately lost his job.

"The outstanding mortgage at the time of the bankruptcy was some €326,000 with €75,000 arrears, Mr Wallace's counsel told the court.

However, counsel said the actual amount, had there not been an overcharge, was around €284,000 with €52,000 arrears."

So the overcharge certainly made a bad situation worse but that alone was hardly the cause of the bankruptcy.
 
Masque said:
...no matter what happens, PTSB will have to pay Mr Kissane's legal teams' costs.
Click to expand...

Eh, no. If Mr Kissane's clients do not succeed with their claims then they may well be liable for the bank's costs (in addition to their own) - it's a two way street.
 
Sarenco,

From reading the above article, Justice Costello somehow thought differently, although I do have some sympathy for your submission. This would be an argument that the bank's legal counsel may well have to argue in another Court at another time. However what I will say is that there may well be more than one proximate cause that can be deemed by a court to have contributed to a bankruptcy and that is all a plaintiff may need.

In relation to the costs issue, the bank has admitted liability with regard to the overcharging and tracker issues. It is the borrower right to get a court determination of what that liability ( damages ) actually are, in monetary terms. I appears to me that the plaintiff in this case will have the high ground.
 
Masque said:
From reading the above article, Justice Costello somehow thought differently
Click to expand...

How so? Justice Costello simply discharged him from bankruptcy.

Masque said:
In relation to the costs issue, the bank has admitted liability with regard to the overcharging and tracker issues. It is the borrower right to get a court determination of what that liability ( damages ) actually are, in monetary terms. I appears to me that the plaintiff in this case will have the high ground.
Click to expand...

High ground or not - if they don't win their cases they may be held liable for the bank's costs. The bank certainly won't be liable for the plaintiffs' costs "no matter what happens".
 
Sarenco said:
I would have thought the more proximate cause of the bankruptcy in that case was the fact that the borrower unfortunately lost his job.

"The outstanding mortgage at the time of the bankruptcy was some €326,000 with €75,000 arrears, Mr Wallace's counsel told the court.

However, counsel said the actual amount, had there not been an overcharge, was around €284,000 with €52,000 arrears."

So the overcharge certainly made a bad situation worse but that alone was hardly the cause of the bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

That's exactly my point.
 
Sarenco,

The article read that Mr Wallace satisfied the court that he may not have needed to go bankrupt.

How will they not win their case if PTSB have already admitted liability ? The fact is every citizen has a right to claim damages through our courts system if they have a cause of action. The bank has admitted liability in relation to this particular cause of action!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Masque said:
Mr Wallace satisfied the court that he may not have needed to go bankrupt.
Click to expand...

How could you possibly know that?

The article simply said the judge formally discharged him from bankruptcy - it says nothing at all about whether or not the judge was satisfied (or even considered) whether or not the borrower "needed" to seek bankruptcy protection.

Masque said:
How will they not win their case if PTSB have already admitted liability ?
Click to expand...

Again, how could you possibly know the plaintiffs' case? And why do you think PTSB have "admitted liability"? Liability for what? And how do you admit lability for claims that have yet to be made?

All we know so far is that PTSB (quite rightly in my opinion) dropped their appeal against the High Court ruling that upheld an FSO decision in a sample of related cases and then established a redress scheme.

Masque said:
The fact is every citizen has a right to claim damages through our courts system if they have a cause of action.
Click to expand...

Obviously. Nobody has suggested otherwise.

Masque said:
The bank has admitted liability in relation to this particular cause of action!
Click to expand...

No they haven't.

Look, I have long argued on here that PTSB's position regarding the relevant contract wording was untenable and I urged readers (against the advice of others) to seek legal representation to pursue a claim for damages for breach of contract before any claims became statute barred. I have no doubt that such actions will ultimately yield better compensation awards than that offered by PTSB thus far.

However, this course of action is not entirely without risk and it is dangerous to suggest otherwise.
 
Yes, I've read the article and it simply reports on the result of a hearing to discharge a bankrupt with some commentary/spin from a solicitor about a possible future claim.

Are you still maintaining that PTSB will be responsible for Mr Kissane's legal teams' costs "whatever happens"?
 
Sarenco,

What I am saying is that PTSB was forced by the Central Bank of Ireland into a grovelling public apology ( don't smile look serious ( note to self, Jeremy Masding CEO PTSB )) because the bank was found by the CBI to have taken people off tracker rates in breach of the borrowers contracts. ( PTSB likely appealing the High court decision, upholding of the FSO decision solely as to exclude other borrowers similar recourse due to statute of limitations, shows a certain contempt I think.)

What we do know is that certain borrowers had their houses wrongly repossessed.

What we do know is that PTSB decided, in their wisdom, to offer borrowers who lost their PPR 50,000 euro and for investors who lost a BTL property 25,000 euro.

What we do know is that the director of enforcement at the CBI, Dervil Rowland, told affected borrowers to use the compensation money offered by PTSB to seek legal advice.

What I do know is that this compensation is derisory and insulting to the said borrowers affected.

Sarenco, would you accept the bank's compensation offer if you were so affected?

What I can say is that from my knowledge of the courts, is that if a borrower so affected as above ( loss of property ) seeks damages in the High Court regarding PTSB's actions, the likely court award will be significantly higher than the compensation currently on offer from the bank.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top