I disagree. Basic principles of offer and acceptance in contract law. You accept an offer and contract is made.There is no such argument. Read the wording of the document you are being asked to sign.
Most accountants and financial advisors would not understand these issues.Padraig kissane is not a solicitor, he is a financial advisor.
Sarenco. I presume you have not read the form? Read it and then see if you think the same. It is simply a direction to pay the money into whatever account you want.Well, I would be of the view that people should seek legal advice if they are in any doubt about the import of any form that they are being requested to complete or return and advising people not to do so is unwise.
Have you seen or heard any of the interviews with him? He just took an injunction because he misunderstood the form. He achieved absolutely nothing. He has accepted the payment which they proposed to make last week.I actually think that Mr FitzGerald's approach is quite interesting. His strategy appears to be to pursue the overcharged amount as an uncontested contract debt and then request a Court to exercise its discretion to apply interest to that debt.
A completely separate issue to his trips to the court. He may choose to bypass the Appeals process. I think he is wrong, but he may be right and I may be wrong.Would he do as well in an "appeal" to the PTSB appointed appeals board? Possibly, but he may be taking the view that his hand would be strengthened in any possible settlement negotiations by by-passing the internal PTSB process entirely and going straight to the Courts.
He could well be right.
See above. They did not win. They are no further that they were before they took this case. They claim that they have got clarity that choosing a bank account does not affect their right to claim more compensation. That was clear to anyone who bothered to read the document before this.They brought a case and won because they were correct - the monies owed to them should have been paid and any aspect of compensation processed separately.
He shows in his own words that he had no idea at all what he was talking about.In a sworn statement grounding the application Mr Fitzgerald a solicitor of Perrin Way, Lusk Village said it was "utterly reprehensible " PTSB has not unequivocally offered to "immediately" and "without question" repay him and his wife the amount they were overcharged.
There is "no legal basis" for refusing to pay the sums overcharged, he said. He said the condition they accept the offer of compensation offered before the can get back the amount overcharged is "a disgraceful requirement."
Sorry odyssey. They established nothing of the sort. It was already well established. Have you read the actual forms which I attached to an earlier post?I would argue that they won in the sense that they established the principle that the monies owed to them and the compensation due to them are two separate processes.
If you are referring to "Mortgage rate instruction and payment authorisation form", all I see in that form are ands - everything is linked: redress, compensation, adjustment to your mortgage acocunt. I see no indication that these could be processed\considered separately - but perhaps I missed something?Sorry odyssey. They established nothing of the sort. It was already well established. Have you read the actual forms which I attached to an earlier post?
It's great to see someone actually reading it.A: Tick to authorise us to make a redress payment (if any) and a compensation
payment to the account below (this is the account from which payments to your
mortgage are currently made) and to authorise us to apply any adjustment to your
mortgage accounts as part of this redress programme.
I think it would have been quite a trivial thing to have had another box on the form where customers could 'tick' to accept the initial compensation to be paid to the same account; or could have chosen to consider that offer (with a lengthy timeframe) while immediate repayment was made of the mortgage account.It's great to see someone actually reading it.
The linking is that you are signing one piece of paper to authorise all this.
ptsb is absolutely right to do this. They could have opted for 3 separate forms and forced people to fill in all the details again. Why on earth would they do that?
I presume you have noticed that the word "offer" and "accept" are not on this form? I presume you have noticed "in full and final settlement" is not on this form?