Ptsb independent review panel

They paid a basic compensation as follows:

"Loss Of Ownership Cases:
Sixty‐one accounts, which were impacted by this failure, have seen a loss of ownership of the relevant property since these failures occurred. A review of the relevant cases by permanent tsb and Springboard suggests that, in twenty‐two of these cases, the customers may have avoided losing their property if these failures had not occurred. The appeals panel may find that the failure was a key factor in more of these cases based on additional information that customers may provide to them.

Impacted customer account holders who have lost ownership of their relevant property will receive compensation payment of €50,000 where the property in question was their Home and €25,000 where the property in question was a Buy‐to‐Let property. If permanent tsb's failure was a key factor in the customer losing the property, any monies still owed by the customer on the mortgage account will be written off."

So people who lost their homes got €50k automatically and could appeal for more. So the €50k was not an estimate of the loss, but a minimum payment.

They shouldn't have gone to an Appeal as such. They should have made a claim for additional compensation to ptsb and then if ptsb rejected it, they should have gone to the Appeals Panels.

I think that this is what AIB is doing.

Brendan
 
They shouldn't have gone to an Appeal as such
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean

Are you saying they should have done things in different order, that they might not have needed to go to the independent appeals board?
 
I am not blaming the borrowers. I am blaming ptsb and the Central Bank for the cumbersome system they set up.

They should have set up a system where borrowers could have claimed more directly from ptsb. If ptsb rejected their claim, then they would go to the Appeals Panel.

Brendan
 
Here is the reply to the Dail question
“Two appeals panels were established in 2015 as an integral part of the Mortgage Redress Programme (MRP) which Permanent TSB Group established to address the issue of 1,372 customers who had been impacted by a failure in relation to their mortgage accounts at the Bank or at its subsidiary, Springboard Mortgages.

"With the agreement of the Central Bank, the Independent Review Panel (IRP) and the Customer Appeals Panel (CAP) were established as independent entities under agreed Terms of References. The IRP was established to hear appeals from impacted customers who had lost ownership of the relevant property or who are now / were previously engaged in legal action with the Group over their mortgage. The CAP was established to hear appeals from all other impacted customers.

"The members of the panels include senior independent representatives from the legal and accountancy professions. Members were proposed by Permanent TSB and the Central Bank was informed of the identities of the individual members prior to their appointments. The panels are serviced by a secretariat which is itself independent of the bank.

"Customers bringing an appeal to either of these panels incur no charges for doing so from either Permanent TSB or from the panels themselves. Customers may bring an appeal even after accepting any payments made by the Bank in respect of the issue with no impact on their appeal what-so-ever. Customers who are unhappy with the outcome of the appeal are still entitled to pursue the matter to the Financial Service Ombudsman and/or the Courts.

"These appeal panels offer a reasonable, fast and cost free method for impacted customers to appeal the redress proposals set out by the Bank. Importantly the redress proposals may be appealed even though the customer has accepted the amounts offered. Taking an appeal to these panels does not limit the customer’s ability to appeal the matter further including to the Courts.

"To date appeals have been submitted to these panels in respect of just 20% of eligible cases (i.e. in respect of 273 accounts of the total population of 1,372 accounts). It should be noted that despite the Bank giving a full 12 months for customers to decide whether to appeal to these panels or not, 59 appeals (including 50 from one individual financial advisor) were submitted after the 12 month deadline had expired. Nevertheless, the panel in question reviewed the merits of each appeal and decided in all cases to allow them to be processed despite being outside the permitted time limit.

"The information below details the outcome of appeals submitted. It is supplied by the Independent Secretariat which supports the panels.”




upload_2017-5-6_10-29-20.png
 
Last edited:
That's a huge proportion of CAP submissions unsuccessful!! That does not inspire confidence!

I think I would prefer to appeal to the independent review panel than the customer review panel!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top