Success! Appealed FSO decision to High Court; FSO agreed not to challenge appeal, the day before .

Discussion in 'The Financial Services Ombudsman' started by laure, Jan 16, 2015.

  1. todo

    todo Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    185
    Hi Laure,
    Well done and I've got to say much respect is deserved to you and your husband for going all the way, with so much at stake if costs were awarded against you.

    I wish I had the same courage, but the system is designed in such away that you can't appeal the FSO's decision without the risk of financial ruin.

    Well done again.
     
  2. Brendan Burgess

    Brendan Burgess Founder

    Posts:
    32,099
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2017
    Hi Laure - that is fantastic news. Well done and thanks for taking the time to update us on the outcome. I have edited the thread title to reflect the outcome.


    Astonishing to get it written off, whereas you would have been quite happy to have the €30k added to your mortgage.

    I am a bit confused about the timeline here. Could you fill in some of the dates for us? The reason they are important is that it tells us how long it takes to process a complaint like this. It also tells us whether the decision not to object to the request for an oral hearing was under Bill Prasifka or under the new FSO, who seems more pragmatic.

    2009 - €30 loan granted
    Complained to FSO
    FSO rejected complaint without an oral hearing.

    2015(?) High Court case due for hearing
    FSO agreed to have an oral hearing.

    late 2016 - Oral hearing due

    Bank wrote off loan.

    Brendan
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2017
  3. Brendan Burgess

    Brendan Burgess Founder

    Posts:
    32,099
    And what is the story on legal costs?

    Did you have to pay your solicitor and barrister up front for the challenge to the FSO's decision?

    How much? And did the the FSO pay your costs?

    Brendan
     
  4. Gerry Canning

    Gerry Canning Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    2,514
    Just wondering.

    Could it be that BOI were afraid that since loan was signed by Husband only , that to have that poor practice highlighted in Court was too dangerous .
    I think quite a few of us know cases were the signor was not the recipient of the loan .
    So by paying up, BOI avoids other (worms?)
     
  5. Lone Star

    Lone Star Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    88
    Well done Laure!!! Fair fecks to you!!!!!! :)
     
  6. Sophrosyne

    Sophrosyne Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    739
    This would be very interesting.
     
  7. Bronte

    Bronte Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    11,976
    Wow Laure you are just fantastic and such an inspiration. Well done you.

    I have nothing but contempt for the FO and the bank. Disgusting behavior.

    For anybody else, now you see how they fold like a pack of cards if you put it up to them. But not many people have the stomach for this. Laure is lucky in one respect, timing is excellent as there is a turnarond in view of the FO's previous actions, and the banks of course. It's gone from everything stacked in their favour against the customers.
     
  8. Bronte

    Bronte Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    11,976
    BB does the FO ever pay your legal costs?

    Also I presume Laure signed a confidentiality agreement. If by any chance she didn't I'd love it it were in mainstream media.

    This is a great story. Delighted I came onto AAM today.
     
  9. Brendan Burgess

    Brendan Burgess Founder

    Posts:
    32,099
    I don't ever incur legal costs.

    Brendan
     
  10. cremeegg

    cremeegg Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    1,650
    Some replies seem to think that the FSO changed its mind before the High Court, but from my reading it was BOI who made a settlement offer. Perhaps you could clarify.
     
  11. DirectDevil

    DirectDevil Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    350
    Laure, I am seriously impressed. Well played.

    I too would be interested to know what happened in relation to legal costs. I am not asking for numbers but just to know what costs were covered. If you cannot answer for confidentiality reasons that is fine.

    I had a minor (in quantitative terms) issue with an insurer. I referred it to the FSOB who found against me. I felt that the decision was poor and worth appealing on qualitative grounds. However, the prospect of a High Court case ruled out immediately any question of appeal.

    My understanding of what would have happened is this ;
    1. You present a complaint to the FSOB against the financial institution.
    2. If the FSOB finds against you that is a decision which is legally binding on both the complainant and the institution. There are no legal costs incurred up to this point so your only loss is your time.
    3. If the complainant appeals it has to be to the High Court by way of a Notice of Motion. If you proceed that way I think that both the FSOB and the institution must both be notice parties to the proceedings. Therefore, the appealing complainant effectively becomes the plaintiff in a High Court action against 2 defendants both of whom may seek orders for costs if the complainant loses.
    AFAIK either party to the original FSOB ruling has the right to appeal. So, a complainant who wins via the FSOB might find themselves in the High Court as a defendant with it's associated financial risks if the financial institution decides to appeal.

    IMHO the appeal option is a definite deterrent to any individual who might want to overturn a FSOB ruling. A fortiori, Laure's success was a significant win.