PTSB Overcharged couple reject PTSB’s ‘derisory’ compensation offer

[odyssey06]

I heard Liam Fitzgerald saying you may prejudice yourself against future compensation by accepting the current compensation. I agree with Brendan, PTSB made this completely clear that by accepting the compensation etc, it would not affect any future appeals.

PTSB are not the sole decision makers in the amount of compensation that will be given to customers. The appeals board is supposed to be independent of PTSB. So is the High Court. So how can PTSB know in advance what will and will not affect the amount of compensation paid?

 

[AppleSun]

PTSB are not the sole decision makers in the amount of compensation that will be given to customers. The appeals board is supposed to be independent of PTSB. So is the High Court. So how can PTSB know in advance what will and will not affect the amount of compensation paid?

Surely, if PTSB advised their customers incorrectly AGAIN, they would be in further trouble. Am assuming they would have consulted a legal team before issuing the letters and wording?

 

[odyssey06]

Surely, if PTSB advised their customers incorrectly AGAIN, they would be in further trouble. Am assuming they would have consulted a legal team before issuing the letters and wording?

I would have to see the exact wording of the letter.

If it says anything about the initial compensation not affecting the amount of any further compensation - set by parties external to PTSB (e.g. the appeals board or High Court) - they are giving a guarantee they have no ability to stand over.

If it merely says that the initial compensation does not affect one's future ability to try to appeal the level of compensation, this is a legal clarification from them and I assume would be valid.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

However I am slightly confused. Are the couple getting the 60k cash into their hands (seems to be the case), or are they getting it paid off the remaining balance of the mortgage like the rest of us? I had no choice in whether to take the 60k or to pay it off the mortgage...

Hi Apple

This is a complicated issue. He could not understand the plain English in the payment instruction. I would not expect him to understand the mechanics of the balance adjustment and refund.


Brendan

 

[Sarenco]

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.

ptsb has not helped by using the expression "offer" although it is not on the form. It is nor like a claim for compensation where you claim €100k. They offer €20k. And you settle by agreement on €50k in full and final settlement. It is a payment, not an offer.


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.



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.

The key thing is that signing that form to nominate the account to which the money is to be paid, does not affect that at all.

Hi Brendan

I am not disagreeing for a second with your description of what is contained within the form - I simply don't think it is appropriate to discourage people from seeking legal advice if they have any concerns regarding the import of the form. That's all.

I'm not sure I would necessarily agree with you that Mr FitzGerald's injunctive proceedings achieved absolutely nothing. On the basis of the media reports that I've read, it appears that his main objective was to avoid having the payment characterised as (an appealable) redress payment as he intends to pursue the amount as a contractual debt to which interest may be added by a Court. In other words, the dispute was not about the amount of the payment or when or how the payment would be made but rather how it would be characterised in his hands. We can only guess whether he was successful in this regard as the matter did not go to a hearing.

I'm not saying that his strategy of moving directly to the Courts is right or wrong - I simply saying that it's an interesting approach.