Brendan. For clarity the earlier wording re the CCPC's website is not the first active wording. I agree that the entire wording should be read together.
However it is the banks who are misrepresenting the letters, selectively extracting, misrepresenting a letter as a tracker removal letter when it never says anything that could be remotely construed as implying that it indicated the loss of a tracker. Far from it. It provided as one of the options a tracker, albeit surrounded by vague language which was never defined such as prevailing, etc.
And in the banks response to the FSO in my case it actually inserted the word standard in front of variable rate on two occasions to say that the letter said standard variable rate when it actually said variable rate. These are fundamental differences as a tracker is a variable rate product linked to the ecb rate.
I want to be careful with language used here but if someone tries tell me that a bank made an innocent mistake in misrepresenting to the FSO on two occasions the letter I signed then I know what I think. And it's not innocent, it's at the complete opposite end of the spectrum. I won't use the word here.
It's a disgrace, I have highlighted this aspect of my case to the central bank twice and each time got a generic response pointing me back in the direction of the bank. Waste of time. I have sat patiently for years expecting this to get resolved.
The banks in their behaviour in denying people who had a genuine grievance fair treatment have brought a plague of complaints down on themselves, probably some (many??) of which are of a me too and superfluous nature.
I have no sympathy for the banks or the people in the banks who committed these wrongs, many the result of deliberate decisions, and many orchestrated in my opinion to circumvent the written agreements. It is critical that the banks, and the people involved are held to account.
Far from legal and other advisors assisting the banks and allegedly acting as reviewers to ensure compliance with central bank review guidelines, it should be the Garda fraud squad investigating the banks and the people involved. I am not saying this lightly, I understand the seriousness of it for them but it seems to me that something of this nature is required to get to the truth. If they have moved employer that is no reason not to interview them, if their name is on a file where there is a legitimate reason to review.
It is clear that the banks have a serious case to answer yet they are being treated far too leniently and allowed to call the shots when it comes to progress, timelines, etc. In my case the bank distorted, misrepresented and twisted the langugue for self serving purposes, not to mention the twice convenient insert of an extra word in my letter, and of course a word that suited the Bank when imo they knew or ought to have known that the letter I signed gave me the legal right to a tracker return.
And we all have to wait while the banks continue to pontificate, etc. How long can can this farce continue?
