Has anyone been refused the return of their tracker?
- Thread starter corktim
- Start date
moneymakeover
Registered User
- Messages
- 900
Good question
What is going on with the review?
But it is now 18 months since the review was announced in Nov 2015
And still we're waiting
What is going on with the review?
But it is now 18 months since the review was announced in Nov 2015
And still we're waiting
Hi All, Great question Corktim
There are many who have been already told they are not impacted by the investigation, but here is the important bit, told by the relevant Bank and not the investigation as it is not concluded.
The final decision for accessing who is impacted, or not, will rest with the Central bank and not the lender. Each lender will be challenged as part of the investigation and there will need to be clear reasons for those that are not impacted following the assurance phase of the investigation. I have raised the issue in regards to cases which are ultimately decided are not impacted (many of whom will still believe they have a case) and what occurs for those cases in terms of appealing the decision etc. because the statute of 6 years will come against each loan that will be deemed outside the investigation, and as such the courts and FSO will not be an option. I have asked that this is reviewed by CB as it could become important if the ultimate decision excludes many from their tracker rates. In other words who challenges the position of the investigation if many are disappointed by the outcomes. You can be certain if there are clear concerns I will be.
Any further queries please let me know Padraic
There are many who have been already told they are not impacted by the investigation, but here is the important bit, told by the relevant Bank and not the investigation as it is not concluded.
The final decision for accessing who is impacted, or not, will rest with the Central bank and not the lender. Each lender will be challenged as part of the investigation and there will need to be clear reasons for those that are not impacted following the assurance phase of the investigation. I have raised the issue in regards to cases which are ultimately decided are not impacted (many of whom will still believe they have a case) and what occurs for those cases in terms of appealing the decision etc. because the statute of 6 years will come against each loan that will be deemed outside the investigation, and as such the courts and FSO will not be an option. I have asked that this is reviewed by CB as it could become important if the ultimate decision excludes many from their tracker rates. In other words who challenges the position of the investigation if many are disappointed by the outcomes. You can be certain if there are clear concerns I will be.
Any further queries please let me know Padraic
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,075
Hi Padraic
I think that the Ombudsman's view is that if the bank decides that you are not impacted, then they are making that decision today in 2017 and therefore you can appeal that decision.
I doubt if the courts would follow this line of thinking though.
Brendan
Brendan
As you say its only an opinion at present, which is what i am ensuring is addressed to at least create some means of having the matter tested. It would be better to have both options available as the issues could be quiet technical in legal terms and might require courts for a proper decision or outcome. All in all it will be in the air until decided upon. Again the issue could be sorted if the Banks waived their statute in cases deemed not impacted in relation specifically to the tracker issue only. That is not yet achieved but are some of the solutions being considered. Padraic
As you say its only an opinion at present, which is what i am ensuring is addressed to at least create some means of having the matter tested. It would be better to have both options available as the issues could be quiet technical in legal terms and might require courts for a proper decision or outcome. All in all it will be in the air until decided upon. Again the issue could be sorted if the Banks waived their statute in cases deemed not impacted in relation specifically to the tracker issue only. That is not yet achieved but are some of the solutions being considered. Padraic
Thanks for the replies guys.
Its somewhat reassuring to know that the CB have some say in the final outcome. Given the track record to date im sure most lenders will fight tooth and nail to deny people their trackers back.
I can see a long drawn out battle ahead when this review is finished and the banks yet again giving customers the two fingers.
Its somewhat reassuring to know that the CB have some say in the final outcome. Given the track record to date im sure most lenders will fight tooth and nail to deny people their trackers back.
I can see a long drawn out battle ahead when this review is finished and the banks yet again giving customers the two fingers.
Hi
I received update last week from AIB that my lost tracker on the pre early 2006 contract is currently considered by AIB as not impacted and thus I am not being returned to tracker rate specified in contract. The pre 2006 cohort of AIB customers currently seem to be considered by AIB as not impacted under the review.
I received update last week from AIB that my lost tracker on the pre early 2006 contract is currently considered by AIB as not impacted and thus I am not being returned to tracker rate specified in contract. The pre 2006 cohort of AIB customers currently seem to be considered by AIB as not impacted under the review.
If Paddy Kiss is right it's not that the CB have just "some say" - they have "the final say". I wrote to the Central Bank directly a few weeks ago about my own case and received a very sympathetic reply in writing. There's no harm letting the Central Bank know of your own individual cases. Although they can't comment, they said they "understood my frustration" (in the ridiculously protracted nature of this review) and that my letter had been passed on to the relevant department. I was glad I let them now my side of the story. I'm sure the bank has a very watered down version of what happened to make themselves look innocent.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,075
https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threa...-to-those-who-fixed-before-march-2006.200965/
This is discussed here. But none of those affected have told us what the contract says and what the MFA says, so it's hard to know whether or not AIB is right.
Joe - Could you post a reply to that thread with the wording, in particular of the MFA, as there must be many people affected by this.
Brendan