Courts award compensation to PTSB customers

[Sarenco]

I have been crystal clear in my advice to any PTSB borrower that has been impacted by this issue, both on this thread and elsewhere.

Now, for the third time, are you still maintaining that PTSB will be liable for the plaintiff's costs "no matter what happens"?

I'm not terribly interested in your "knowledge of the courts" but I do have an issue with misleading posts.

 

[Masque]

Good for you.

For the second time, the plaintiffs in these types of actions will have the higher ground, the bank has offered compensation, for what, if PTSB has done nothing wrong ? I cannot see why a borrower so affected ( loss of property due to the actions of PTSB ) would lose such a legal action or am I missing something simple that you would like to share with the readers of this thread ? If so, I wait this revelation with baited breath !

My suggestion might be for you to visit the courts more often, so as to get some more knowledge yourself. As for your suggestion that my posts are somehow misleading, I am at a loss to what you are talking about. I am simply stating that if a borrower, who has lost a property due to the actions of PTSB, were to seek damages through the courts, his / her likely award would be greater than that currently being offered as compensation by PTSB. There is nothing misleading about this though maybe the concept of open discussion and challenges to your personal viewpoint might be alien to you.

 

[Sarenco]

I didn't ask for your opinion as to the likelihood of success of the plaintiffs' claims for the simple reason that you don't appear to have any particular insight into the plaintiffs' claims and, quite frankly, I don't have any interest in your opinions in this regard.

I did, however, ask you on three separate occasions whether you were still maintaining that PTSB would be liable for the plaintiffs' costs "no matter what happens".

You are obviously not prepared to answer that simple question. Your comment on this point was grossly misleading and the fact that you are at a loss as to why this is the case speaks volumes.

Similarly, I am not in the least bit interested in your suggestions as to what I should do with my time.

 

[Masque]

You appear to be going off thread and attacking the poster not the post.

The answer to your question with respect to borrowers who have lost a property due to PTSB's actions is " YES " PTSB will have to pay the plaintiffs legal costs in an action regarding same " no matter what happens " This is my belief. Last time I looked I thought this was a consumer forum, not Sarenco's forum, were you ram your own personal opinions down posters throats. Please provide me with even one example, other than within a settlement agreement, were a defendant would not be liable to pay a plaintiff's legal costs regarding an action for a breach of contract were the defendant has already offered compensation in a redress scheme due to the said breach.

Also, for a second time Sarenco, would you accept the compensation amounts set by PTSB if you had lost property in this type of scenario ?

 

[Sarenco]

Please provide me with even one example, other than within a settlement agreement, were a defendant would not be liable to pay a plaintiff's legal costs regarding an action for a breach of contract were the defendant

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.

That is not an opinion or a belief - it's simply the way our system works and to suggest otherwise is misleading.

Also, for a second time Sarenco, would you accept the compensation amounts set by PTSB if you had lost property in this type of scenario ?

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.

Hopefully that's clear.

 

[Wardy7]

I am engaged with Padraic Kissane and will possibly be heading to the High Court. I have been advised of the possibility of losing the case and having to pay PTSB's costs.

 

[Masque]

Hi Wardy 7,

I believe that Mr Kissane may be taking a legal challenge on the interest rate margin issue which is a separate and additional issue to those that lost their PPR and BTL properties due to the overcharging of PTSB.

 

[Wardy7]

I would have thought that the principal was the same though?

Liability admitted.....compensation paid?

I don't claim to have any legal knowledge. My comment was purely to show that we have been advised of the possibility of a loss.

 

[Joeber]

The money being awarded to the bankrupts in this case is actually the original compensation offered in the redress scheme. These people were not able to accept the original compensation offers by PTSB. Because they were bankrupt the official assignee had the legal right to take 100% of the redress compensation to pay back creditors. The article makes out that the judge awarded the compensation but that's not the case.