RTE 1 Documentary: "Trackers: The People vs. the Banks"

[Brendan Burgess]

6. Those who were conned by the financial institutions were not too happy with the settlements and wanted compensation for worry, difficulty, hardship endured etc. They got no "compo." I reckon they were all good upstanding people and deserved some.

The Central Bank launched its tracker review for all banks in 2015. A key element of any redress package was compensation. So most people did get compensation.

The 2 cases last night which mentioned the amount of a refund that they got were ICS customers who were refunded long before 2015. The overcharging was for a shorter period and the amounts overcharged were lower, so they did not get compensation.

After 2015, the overcharging had been going on for much longer and so the impact on people was much larger and they did deserve compensation.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

9. Is there a case for criminal proceedings?

No. I have seen plenty of bad behaviour but I have not seen any evidence of crime.

Just to be clear - all of these cases involved the interpretation of clauses in mortgage contracts or in the documentation around the fixing of the mortgage rate. The banks interpreted these in the way most beneficial to the banks and the customers interpreted these in the way most beneficial to the customers. That is a civil matter and not a criminal matter.

 

[SnowdaisyBell]

Trackers: The People v The Banks. Riveting insight into misery inflicted by Irish lenders

Television: Absorbing documentary is full of faceless villains acting with reckless abandon

www.irishtimes.com

 

[Persia]

The banks interpreted these in the way most beneficial to the banks and the customers interpreted these in the way most beneficial to the customers.

I fixed two residential investment mortgage with ICS, one for three years the other for five years. I requested a letter confirming both would revert to a tracker mortgage once the fixed term expired.

They provided a very clear confirmation on the three year one and told me not to worry about the 5 year as the letter they provided for the three year would cover the five year.

The letter was signed and on ICS headed paper.

Roll forward to the inevitable and they refused to acknowledge the letter. There was no beneficial interpretation on my side. It was guaranteed in a signed letter.

These guys acted (as far as I was concerned) in a despicable manner.It certainly did not feel like a civil matter and still doesn't.

Regardless I took the case to the Ombudsman and won. I reserve my anger though for those that did nothing to prevent it. Whose job, it literally was, to regulate these banks.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Hi Persia

That is odd for a few reasons.

If you got a letter before you fixed and only fixed because you had that letter, then it would overwrite any contractual term.

In my experience, the banks put these back on trackers once the issue was raised and once it was clear cut.

It is very odd that they would let such a clear cut case go to the Ombudsman. They must have had an argument. What was their argument for not putting you back on a tracker?

What does "They refused to acknowledge the letter" mean? They denied that they sent any such letter?

 

[Persia]

It is very odd that they would let such a clear cut case go to the Ombudsman. They must have had an argument. What was their argument for not putting you back on a tracker?

There was no argument from them. We dont do em anymore....end of. initially I thought it to be a mistake and asked to speak to a manager.

After an exhausting conversation, in which I repeatedly referenced the letter, the Manager put on an I'm talking to a child here voice and said. We.no.longer.do tracker.mortgages. so. how.can. We.put you.back on one.do you understand?

I asked for and received a final response letter and off I went to the Ombudsman.

 

[Ceist Beag]

Whatever about the content of the show, whoever edited it should never be allowed edit another show. The slow mo shots of couples, close ups of faces, it was so distracting and annoying it was hard to focus on what was being said.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

We dont do em anymore....end of.

OK, so it was the same argument as used in the AIB Prevailing Rate case. I was not aware that ICS used the same argument. When did you get your Ombudsman's decision.

 

[Persia]

It was 2010 or 2011. ICS let it run down to the wire, they threw in the towel just before the Ombudsman ruled and put me back on the trackers, refunding me the money but little or no compensation...can't recall as not at home at moment.

I can have a look and see the final communications I had with the Ombudsman and send them on to you or indeed all communications I had with them. Will need to dig them out though.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

ICS let it run down to the wire, they threw in the towel just before the Ombudsman ruled

OK, I was wondering why I had not heard of this issue before.

Ulster Bank had a habit of defending the indefensible all the way and then conceding before having an Ombudsman's decision naming and shaming them. They calculated that some people would just give up their complaint.

It seems that ICS were doing the same.

Brendan

 

[Freelance]

The slow mo shots of couples, close ups of faces, it was so distracting and annoying it was hard to focus on what was being said

Not to mention the house in Wexford being lovingly painted in best dulux colours, the goalposts being carried onto the pitch, the poodles being fed, the rub being massaged into chicken fillet strips, the bunches of hanging grapes being felt-up and the many shots of people looking wistfully into the middle distance contemplating what might have been, or the price of a pound of sausages, or something.

On the other hand getting Aidan Jordan back for the intro/continuity was an inspired move.

I’ll reserve judgment until the full series has been aired, but it feels like tight editing should have condensed last night’s “emotive fact free drivel” (thanks for that @Sarenco) into a 12/15 mins intro segment to be followed by some ruthless interviewing of the Brian Farrell or Olivia O’Leary type.

Honohan’s [I was too busy doing important (prudential) stuff and couldn’t be expected to be doing secondary (consumer protection) stuff as well] was both revealing and very very disappointing. Shocking insight actually. A real Prince Duke Andrew TV moment.

 

[CorkHome2022]

As regards a criminal prosecution , the bar for taking the case would be very hard to meet unless some whistle-blower came forward and exposed a plan/conspiracy to knowingly change the contracts with the intent to defraud .
With the passage of time it would be nigh on impossible to make the case stick , the only chance was 10 years ago when the Central Bank began to look at it and also involve the Economic Crime Unit of AGS .
We should have brought in experts from the US and UK to help out but its too late .
The system is rigged against the individual customer , RTE should have done that show 10 years ago.

 

[Persia]

RTE should have done that show 10 years ago.

Was thinking this myself. Data is seriously missing from the first episode. Be nice to see this in the 2nd episode.

I semi understand the emotional slant. For me it was a massive kick, combined with Lenihan jnrs removal of sec 23.

The perfect storm. It was an absolute roller coaster. We really struggled for that 1+ years. It was an unpleasant time.

Thankfully the third wheel was removed when I abandoned plans to buy a 2 bed in inchicore in 2007 or thereabouts.

Had we bought that we would likely have lost our home.

I got back the trackers and Mr Noonan semi restored the sec 23.Best Finance Minister ever

 

[GSheehy]

There was no argument from them. We dont do em anymore....end of. initially I thought it to be a mistake and asked to speak to a manager.

After an exhausting conversation, in which I repeatedly referenced the letter, the Manager put on an I'm talking to a child here voice and said. We.no.longer.do tracker.mortgages. so. how.can. We.put you.back on one.do you understand?

I asked for and received a final response letter and off I went to the Ombudsman.

The levy on the funding of the FSPO should be at least doubled for banks and other financial services companies. Complaints are just a numbers game to them. The bet is that most people will either give up or not follow through. It's clearly more rewarding for banks etc. to stifle the FSPO system. If you hurt banks/shareholders in the pocket they might eventually threat people with less contempt. They're no alone in their how they approach complaints but management are making these decisions and they need a wake up call.

 

[Leper]

1. From previous posts I note the bank must have known that they were carrying on in an illegal way and therefore breaking the law. It took Mr Kissane years to get his ducks in a row, but he did. I have no doubt that some legal eagle looking in could organize an effective legal case against the banks in question.
2. Some posters were peeved at the household products and lifestyle of the victims of the banks. Television is always looking for any angle as a filler and to make the programmes more watchable. Otherwise in this programme we could have financial people talking together in financial-speak and hardly anybody would have watched.
3. Let there be no doubt, the financial institutions mentioned behaved in a very low way towards its customers. And they did this merely for more profit and because they could.

 

[LadyHB]

Watching it just made me very angry all over again. And I've no idea why Holohan's opinion was considered to add any value whatsoever.

I fought like a dog to get redress (finally received), submit an additional appeal (partially upheld), and go down a more serious legal route (settled on the steps after several years).

It's infuriating that no individuals were ever held accountable. Because while we call them the "banks" - at the end of the day it was individuals who made deliberate and very calculated decisions. Such a shame there's never been a whistle blower.

Incidentially Kissane's office looked for a 20% win fee from me, not sure why some people were offered 15%. Either way, I decided to go it alone.

 

[Prosper]

Watched the programme last night and I felt that there were a lot of things unclear, particularly regarding the the Wexford case (the first one) So I rewatched that first half just now and I'm not that much clearer. The facts, that I noted are as follows:

• They bought their Wexford home and one investment property (wifes former family home in Dublin). Didn't say if they availed of Tracker for this and I'm not sure when this mortgage was taken out but I got the impression it was 2006. Probably not relevant.
• Then in 2006, using these two properties as collateral they bought "several other properties" with Trackers from PTSB.
• In December 2006 they signed up to a Fixed Rate and told they could change back to a Tracker at the end of the FR term. I think it was a 3 year contract.
• In Jan 2009 they called PTSB about switching out of the Fixed Rate and on to a Variable Rate contract and were told they could do this and still go back to the Tracker. So they switched from the FR to the VR as a result of this reassurance over the phone.
• At some point they wanted to switch back to the Tracker but they were refused.
• In 2011 they took it to the High Court and towards the end of the HC case their lawyer, through "discovery", found a tape of the phone conversation where it proved that they had been told that they could switch from the Fixed Rate to a Variable Rate and still retain the option of going back to their Tracker.
• The HC found in their favour "on a point of law". However, the stress for them continued for another 7 years i.e. 2018

Before I ask some questions that I really believe the programme should have anticipated their audience would benefit from knowing the answers to, let me mention, by contrast, the documentary on DJ Carey. It was excellent. Before watching the DJ Carey doc, I and I'm sure a lot of people were asking - "How could the bank let him off a €9 million debt for just 60k, and yet hound lots of "little" people out of their homes". A contributor to the programme (David Hall) said "you can't get blood out of a stone, even a celebrity stone". Then we were shown the legal document outlining the deal the bank did with DJ and could see that it had a Windfall clause that I think said that anything he earned above €50k would have to be handed over to the bank. Given that he had really good earning potential, I can see the banks logic in seemingly letting him off so lightly. A good business agent could have him earning appearance money, and branding licence money in the 000's per week. We saw documents evidencing his earning potential when they showed that he was earning, was it €2k per month or more from a charity. So the bank were in a position to work him hard for many years rather than try to get blood from a stone. But DJ messed all that up.

So, my questions on the Tracker programme:

1. Were the Wexford couples problems caused by being denied returning to their Tracker or due to borrowing to purchase, in 2006, several investment properties?
2. Why did their appeal to the Ombudsman fail?
3. Why not show us the transcript of the phone call that won them the High Court case and what was the "point of law" the HC relied on to find in their favour?
4. After winning the HC case, I assume they went back to the Ombudsman. The programme didn't tell us if they did and if so what did the Ombudsman say?
5. Why did it take another 7 years after the HC ruling for their Tracker to be re-instated?

 

[nest egg]

let me mention, by contrast, the documentary on DJ Carey

Couldn't agree more, I thought the same thing watching it, after having seen the Tracker programme.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Why did it take another 7 years after the HC ruling for their Tracker to be re-instated?

I will try to summarise the case later, but I will deal with this issue first as it was the most glaring omission.

Thomas Byrne fought a great fight. He was one of the first to go to the Ombudsman on a tracker. And he made himself available for TV interviews and was in the Oireachtas.

But unfortunately, the programme didn't tell us what the outcome was. It said something like "We thought we had won in the High Court but it took another 7 years to be eventually resolved."

My understanding of it is that the High Court referred the case back to the Ombudsman.
While the Ombudsman was reviewing it, ptsb were directed by the Central Bank to review all cases, so his case was put on hold, pending the outcome.
He along with others in his position got a tracker reinstated,
But, he was didn't have a price promise and he got a tracker at ECB +3.35%.

The 3.35% margin was complained to the Ombudsman by a few ptsb customers, but all these complaints were rejected.

So he would have got a refund but a comparatively small one.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

I think that a graphic would have helped viewers to follow the story but here are the facts as I understand them. I have attached the full High Court decision in the case.

Borrowed in excess of €1m from ptsb on his family home and his wife's family home(?) in Dublin to buy "numerous" investment properties.
All loans were on interest-only tracker mortgages with an average margin of 1.3%.
7 December 2006 Fixed loans in excess of €1m for three years.
At the end of the fixed rate period, he would default to the tracker rate "appropriate to the balance outstanding on the loan at the date of expiry of the fixed rate period.)
Interest rates fell so fixed loans were more expensive than rates in the market
Early January 2009 - he heard Shane Ross on Matt Cooper telling ptsb customers that they could break out of their fixed rate and face no penalty.
This is a really big issue. Why did ptsb not have the usual penalties for people breaking out of fixed rates? They say it was a programming error but it is suggested that it was intentional as those who broke out of fixed rates early would lose their right to a tracker.
13 January 2009 - rang ptsb and claims to have been told that he would go onto a variable rate temporarily and then revert to the tracker rate in December when the fixed rate was scheduled to end.
He broke out of his fixed rate and went onto the variable rate.

In December refused a tracker.
complained to Ombudsman
17 August 2010 - Ombudsman issued a decision rejecting his complaint on the grounds that the Ryans were warned about the implications of switching to a variable rate “through the documentation furnished to them at mortgage inception”.

6 Sept 2010 - Started appeal to the High Court.
As part of the preparation for the case, he then did a Data Request and they sent him a transcript of the phone call which he claimed backed up his claims.

The Judge issued his decision on 23 Sept 2011.

It's important to realise that the Judge does not hear the case from the start. He just decided that there was new information which might affect the Ombudsman's decision had it been known at the time, and sent it back to the Ombudsman to hear again.

July 2015 - ptsb launches review of all tracker cases and so all ptsb cases before the Ombudsman are put on hold.

In about 2017 or 2018, he and many others were put back on trackers by ptsb.
Many had a price promise, so they went back on ECB + 1%.
But the Ryans had a price promise on only one of their mortgages, and so they got a refund based on ECB +3.35% - the rate prevailing when their fixed rate was due to end.