Ombudsman will publish 25 legally binding tracker mortgage decisions "by the beginning of March"

Brendan Burgess

The Ombudsman has published a digest of his decisions but trackers don't seem to feature.

The Digest is attached.

You can access all the decisions here

From the bottom of the press release.

The Ombudsman has decided to separately publish 25 legally binding tracker mortgage decisions by
the beginning of March 2020. These decisions and a Digest of tracker mortgage decisions will be
published separately in order to illustrate the breadth and complexity of the issues raised and given
the interest in these particular legally binding decisions.

Here is the rest of it.

Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman publishes legally binding decisions issued in 2019

This is the second year the FSPO has made the full text of his decisions available to the public

13 February 2020

The Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman (FSPO) has today published 394
legally binding decisions, issued throughout 2019. The FSPO used informal mediation to successfully
resolve most of the complaints closed in 2019. Of the 439 complaints closed by way of formal
investigation which resulted in a legally binding decision, 201 were either fully, substantially or
partially upheld, while 238 were not upheld.

The FSPO deals with a wide range of complaints relating to insurance, banking, credit facilities and
investments as well as pensions. Some examples of directions made by the Ombudsman in 2019

 Compensation of €15,000 after a lender failed to update an individual’s Irish Credit Bureau
rating to show that their debt was clear, negatively affecting their credit rating;
 Compensation of €35,000 for a couple after a bank overcharged them interest and failed to
clearly state the correct interest rate on their loan;
 Compensation of €15,000 to a company after a bank threatened to close its bank account
due to ‘outstanding debt,’ which turned out to be an error;
 Compensation of €9,000 to a complainant after a car insurer cancelled their policy when a
document requested by the insurer was blocked by its own firewall;
 A direction to pay veterinary costs and compensation of €300 for a couple with a dog whose
pet insurer rejected the claim due to the pet’s weight;
 Compensation of €3,000 for an individual who received less than she expected, when she
made a claim on a dental policy, because of the poor information given to her by the insurer.

This is the second year the Ombudsman’s decisions have been published following the
establishment of the FSPO in January 2018. By publishing these decisions, the Ombudsman aims to
enhance transparency and understanding of his powers and the services provided by the office.

The Ombudsman has also published a Digest of his 2019 decisions. This publication includes
summaries of 33 decisions made in relation to complaints against financial service providers and 3
case studies of decisions made in relation to complaints against pension providers.
Reflecting on the decisions published, the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman, Ger Deering,

“I believe it will be evident to anyone who reads these decisions that the work of my Office can have
a very profound impact on many of those who use our services. I believe that these decisions play a
very important role in improving the conduct of financial service providers.

“The decisions published give a sense of the breadth and complexity of the issues we address and
resolve. I hope that having access to these decisions will assist consumers and their advocates and
financial service providers to avoid and resolve disputes.


  • Digest of Decisions 2019 Volume 2.pdf
    5.5 MB · Views: 221
Last edited:


Registered User
Decision 2, €35,000 compensation for overcharging interest on a mortgage is an interesting one in the context of amounts awarded by the banks for their overcharging.

If structuring a complaint on why the compensation amounts paid by the bank for a tracker error follows the template of this case (and references it) perhaps that’s a good place to start.
Last edited:


Registered User
Good to have a time frame on when to expect the other tracker decisions as the Jan date has now past and the suspense has been excruciating ! I can switch the antenna off for another while!


Registered User
I wonder will the AIB Prevailing Rate case that was upheld be among them. AIB have refused to give any details on it other than to say there were mitigating circumstances.
edit. Not the provisional decision last week the one AIB eluded to at the Finance committee


Registered User
That is not a 2019 decision so it won’t be published. It will have not gone past the 35 days post legally binding decision either

Brendan Burgess

No, the Ombudsman is not allowed to identify the financial institution.

I am guessing that most will relate to cases where the tracker was restored and the borrower was not happy with the level of compensation.

If there are cohort issues in the 25, we should be able to identify them from the circumstances.