"I got my tracker back in 2016 before the general tracker review - but no compensation."

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
40,632
I have been asked this question recently and I don't know if there is much of a precedent.

A borrower argued that they should not have lost their tracker after their fixed rate ended. The bank initially refused but later conceded without the need to go to the Ombudsman.

They paid a refund of interest but not any compensation. The bank still refuses any compensation as it was not part of the tracker review.

Back in 2011 BoI put 2,000 people back on trackers. They paid no compensation and that was fair enough, as the amount overcharged would have been small at that time.

But by 2016, the overcharge would have been significant.

I presume that they just go to the Ombudsman?

Brendan
 

Messedabout

New Member
Messages
2
I have been asked this question recently and I don't know if there is much of a precedent.

A borrower argued that they should not have lost their tracker after their fixed rate ended. The bank initially refused but later conceded without the need to go to the Ombudsman.

They paid a refund of interest but not any compensation. The bank still refuses any compensation as it was not part of the tracker review.

Back in 2011 BoI put 2,000 people back on trackers. They paid no compensation and that was fair enough, as the amount overcharged would have been small at that time.

But by 2016, the overcharge would have been significant.

I presume that they just go to the Ombudsman?

Brendan
Brendan,

I'm faced with a similar contention from BOI. It is saying that I got redress in 2014 for overcharging (was on tracker, went fixed, then bank contended I didn't chose the option of tracker and put me on SVR) and therefore I'm not impacted and outside of the CBI mandated December 2015 examination.

I have been arguing otherwise for years now and my case is with the FSPO. I was provided with redress in the course of an FSO complaint I made in 2014, so my case is a bit different to the one you mention.

I find the bank's position baffling. There's nothing in the CBI materials that states that previously remediated cases are out of scope of the December 2015 examination. In fact there are statements in the materials that indicate the contrary. My understanding of the December 2015 CBI mandated examination is that all mortgage accounts were required to be examined, and if overcharging was identified then adequate compensation must be made.

The bank has never fully explained its position. It simply repeats the statement that I was redressed before 2015 so am not impacted.

The bank's position in my view is disgraceful. In effect it means that even if there was overcharging the bank considers that it is not required to pay a cent of compensation because redress was provided before 2015. In my case the consequence of the bank's position is that I am in a worse position than if I hadn't taken my case to the FSO in 2014 and had continued to suffer the overcharging. In effect I am being penalised because I identified the matter before 2015 and took action seeking what I was legally entitled to. Had I either not spotted the overcharging, or had I not bothered seeking redress from the bank and/or the FSO, the overcharging would have continued beyond 2015 and it would have been identified in the December 2015 mandated examination, and following the bank's logic my account would have been considered to be impacted and redress and compensation would be required. This shows how absurd, self-serving, and in my view absolutely shameful the bank's position is.

Likewise with the case you mention, the upshot of the bank's position is that the customer is in a worse position than if he/she had not argued their case with the bank and sought redress. In your case the customer is in effect being penalised because he/she took action against the bank, presumably in order to get what what he/she was legally entitled to (why else would the bank have paid the refund of interest).

I simply cannot understand how the CBI December 2015 examination can be viewed in such a narrow manner. Surely the purpose behind it was to have the banks review their mortgage books and if there had been overcharging, ensure that the customer is both redressed and compensated? Surely the mandated compensation must be offered even if the overcharging had been redressed in full before 2015? Regardless as to when the overcharging took place or was redressed, the customer has still suffered and should be compensated. Have I completely misread the CBI materials? Am I completely missing what the CBI December 2015 examination is all about?
 
Top