Sorry folks, there are no direct implications whatsoever for ptsb customers or any other customers from the AIB decision.
AIB and ptsb had roughly the same wording in the contract.
ptsb adhered to the contract and offered their customers the "then current tracker rate.". Some accepted it and some rejected it.
AIB broke their contract and did not offer a prevailing rate.
The only indirect implication is that the Ombudsman has shown that he is prepared to properly study the case from both sides and to make a decision without fear or favour. If he thinks that you have a case, he will not worry about the implications of that decision for ptsb. If he thinks that you have no case, he won't worry about the inevitable public criticism of him for finding accordingly.
can I ask is the prevailing rate issue part of the Discounted tracker one also? Did this cohort have a discounted tracker and the contract stated they would be put back on the prevailing rate or are they 2 totally separate cohorts?
Will be interesting to see what prevailing rate AIB now will offer its customers impacted. Has a rate been agreed as part of this review? AIB always said it would have been high if offered for e.g 8%. The PTSB prevailing rate was 2.25% and 3.25% depending on the year. So if AIB end up giving prevailing rate close to the 1% that trackers are known to be at then does not make the PTSB prevailing rate argument stronger.
In the pure prevailing rate cases, people took out fixed rate mortgages which said that they would be offered the "then current tracker rate" when the fixed rate expired. When the fixed rate term expired, ptsb offered these customers the then current tracker rate. (In the AIB case, AIB broke the contract and did not offer the prevailing rate.)
The discounted trackers had a product called discounted tracker.
They started on a tracker with a 0.2% discount for the first year which brought it to 0.6%.
These customers not unreasonably thought that they were on a tracker rate of 0.8% discounted to 0.6%
But they had the same clause about "then current" so they were offered 2.25% and 3.25% margins.
My view is that the name of a product should trump anything written in the small print.
For example, you can't call a savings product "The 10% rate deposit" and then write in the small print that the 10% is paid on only 1% of your savings and it's 0% on the rest.
The ptsb prevailing rates cases will not be linked to any other decisions, the cases will have to win in their own right. I have submitted a complaint based on it being an unfair term in a consumer contract based on guidance published last yr by the european commission, outside this being sucessfull i would think it's unlikely that there will be any changes. It will be interesting to see if the fspo has made any decisions on complaints in this category