A number of matters spring to mind. 1st is fspo never refers to unfair contract terms directive and it should. 2. What does acting in the consumers interest mean if they didn't tell you about tracker option at the time? The problem of financial ignorance is a big issue
3rd since the publication of cases where a case is decided one way and then a similar case is the opposite is going to be a real problem. Institutions will have acted in response to case one way and then there is a complete about face. What's the reasoning fir the new decision and was first negligence?