Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,183
One of you needs to take the lead on this and coordinate a group approach.
The second caveat would be that although only one case would be selected to go forward, all who have contributed would have the choice to have some level of input into the decision making for the case or could opt to just be a silent contributor.
What I mean by that is that there’s no settling on the steps beforehand unless AIB are willing to reinstate all the cohort on tracker rate of ECB + 1.5%
That was my initial view on this if there is a High Court case, but my views have changed over the last week.
5,900 people are getting huge redress based on the work of about 100 of us at most. The other 5,800 have got a completely free ride.
If 200 of you do some more work and risk your money and time and AIB says "We will settle on the proposed terms for the 200 of you and a NDA", at this stage, I would probably think you should take it.
It would also mean that people would have an incentive to subscribe the €1000. "If you pay, you will be part of any settlement offer. If you don't, you won't."
Brendan
would there be an issue whereby only the test case benefits due to the NDA?
It would be like herding cats. And you will get all sorts of bizarre opinions.
No one else is bound by the decisions of the committee.
For example, if AIB offers a settlement, you might think it's a fair compromise and worth accepting rather than risk losing in court. They might say "Look we won't offer a tracker but we will increase the 12% write down to 20%". The committee would have to decide if that was reasonable or not.
5,900 people are getting huge redress based on the work of about 100 of us at most. The other 5,800 have got a completely free ride.
If 200 of you do some more work and risk your money and time and AIB says "We will settle on the proposed terms for the 200 of you and a NDA", at this stage, I would probably think you should take it.
It would also mean that people would have an incentive to subscribe the €1000. "If you pay, you will be part of any settlement offer. If you don't, you won't."
Thanks Lainey, you can count me in for this. The more I think about it this simple interest issue is AIB giving two fingers to us and indeed the ombudsman, their attitude stinks and they need to be held to accountI have no great expertise either from a financial background or from a legal background but I’m happy to help out with planning and organising on this as much as I can. I too feel like this case deserves to go to court. Whether it wins or loses I really believe AIB need to be taken to task on their “legal” arguments, verified by “independent” third parties!!!!
Personally, what I would like to see happen is for about 200-300 of us each to put forward €1000 from our payouts to fund a high court campaign. Similar to Karen’s case being selected for the FSPO, a standard case with no anomalies or special circumstances should be selected to be put forward as the test case to go to the high court with. I believe a few caveats would be required with contributing to this fund. Firstly, the fund is to be used to bring the case before the high court, not just to the high court. What I mean by that is that there’s no settling on the steps beforehand unless AIB are willing to reinstate all the cohort on tracker rate of ECB + 1.5% and no NDA would be signed, it is highly unlikely that AIB would do this. As Brendan correctly pointed out there’s no guarantee that we will win this case but the individual monetary cost of this risk is hugely decreased to €1000, and that’s €1000 that we didn’t necessarily expect to have in the first place. The second caveat would be that although only one case would be selected to go forward, all who have contributed would have the choice to have some level of input into the decision making for the case or could opt to just be a silent contributor. I think it would be unfair if someone contributed and their case wasn’t selected to be put forward and they were completely left in the dark about decisions. However, I’m not completely sure how this might work considering there’d be 300 contributors, but at a minimum a general consensus on how this would work would need to be reached before people started contributing.
These are just my initial thoughts on taking a high court case. I am 100% onboard with supporting a high court action but would not be in a position to fund it myself. If there’s enough people willing to take this action and by grouping our money together we will have the ability to fund the campaign, I’m completely in. I’m also very happy to defer to other ideas on how best to go about this but I just thought I’d share my initial thoughts and see if others were thinking the same or did they have alternative ideas.
But I do think we need to get the ball rolling on this sooner rather than later. The cheques are fresh in our accounts (or hopefully en route to us which I’m hoping mine is!) and the money most likely has not found a home yet. As the saying goes “eaten pie is soon forgotten”, so in 2 months time €1000 may seem like a huge amount of money whereas now it won’t .
Also, I think making sure it goes to court and is ruled upon, whether it’s a win or a lose, will take away an awful lot of uncertainty for others in the future and will ensure a precedent is set either way.
That was my initial view on this if there is a High Court case, but my views have changed over the last week.
5,900 people are getting huge redress based on the work of about 100 of us at most. The other 5,800 have got a completely free ride.
If 200 of you do some more work and risk your money and time and AIB says "We will settle on the proposed terms for the 200 of you and a NDA", at this stage, I would probably think you should take it.
It would also mean that people would have an incentive to subscribe the €1000. "If you pay, you will be part of any settlement offer. If you don't, you won't."
Brendan
Just on the above, and your other posts on this, the herding cats analogy is perfect because of the diverse range of opinions and levels of annoyance over the actions of AIB.
And there would be different circumstances as well. If someone faced repossession, they would not accept the same deal as the vast majority who were just inconvenienced a bit.
That wouldn't matter so much if the lead case was not looking for compensation.
Brendan
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?