Bikini Widow
Registered User
- Messages
- 86
However, having spent quite a bit of time talking to the fraud squad in Harcourt street, the Garda I spoke too felt that it would be too difficult to prove criminal fraud charges. Even though you could say the dogs on the street know what happened, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they did it and it is very hard to do that.
Maybe I am missing something very basic here. Given now that this tracker issue is effecting customers across so many banks how can they maintain it to be a "systems failure"? What would be the likelihood of the same system failure across many institutions causing the same problem for all their customers ie denial of tracker?!
Perhaps you should write to the Commissioner, its hardly a matter that a single Garda would be able to take on themselves.
As for proving the intention, well after complaints were received by the bank that trackers were removed incorrectly, I would think criminal intention would be less difficult to establish.
After all the question is , "Well, Ms. Smith when you took this person off their tracker did you know that you were enriching the bank by your actions".
Notabene that's what I mean. How could a bank convince a judge it was ignorant to the fact and the whole debacle was down to a glitch. How could any judge believe any bank made a whoopsy when the same scenario played out for thousands for customers. And if it was a glitch then the problem would have expected been fixed when brought to the banks attention not fought every step of the way!
Well first of all it's a jury in a criminal case you'd be convincing not a judge - theoretically all you need is one juror who doesn't believe it's beyond a reasonable doubt and that's it.
Believe me I understand the frustration, I am so sick of this living like this and have tried absolutely everything to sort it out. I was in fact was so distracted by the discussion with the guard I had a small tip in the car after it.
But as much as I don't like what she said I also understand what she was saying - in order to be sure of a criminal convinction you need water tight proof that they did do it on purpose. I would suspect that is not written down somewhere to get. So short of a whistle blower, where is the proof it wasn't an accident (again, I'm not saying it was but they would argue that) And while we all know there was intent, you have to be able to prove that this is what it was and how exactly can that be done?
It's not good enough in a criminal court to say because it happened to '000s.
I have emails which say they knew I was entitled to it & they benefited financially by paying compensation and the guard said this wasn't enough to be sure of a criminal conviction.if you take a civil case the burden of proof is far lower and therefor more likely to be successful. Not fair bit but in law it's often not about right and wrong but what you can prove and what you can't
If it wasn't intentional, how is it that all of the main banks took customers off tracker rates during the same time period (end of 2008 into 2009) and by the same methods (not allowing customers to revert to trackers after fixing periods expired or taking them off trackers if they could only afford to continue on interest only payments)? All 15 banks did it, which indicates that they were operating as a cartel. And it was directly after the Troika had come over to Ireland and was pouring over the banks' loan books saying "these trackers are a disaster....get rid of them" (to be said with a German accent). NO! It was a collective decision with intent and it will all come out this year. Asking a guard's opinion in Harcourt Street Garda Station is a bit 'Father Ted' lads.
notabene - you must be fascinated to read the article by the judge in the examiner today! While I hope it doesn't jeopardise any future legal action, it will certainly frighten anyone in the banks who may have been in certain positions and made incorrect calls back in 2008-2010!!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?