The amount of compensation is a disgrace!

D

Descart

Guest
Sure thing asphyxia/descart/advice etc

I'm sure you're right. I'm sure there'll be queues out the door of the high court. Im sure you could even squeeze in some unfair terms & conditions argument relating to variation interest rates.

As to you're "tricking conspiracy theory" the high court actually adjudicated on this and found against the 2 ombudsman decisions which claimed same.

Andy, nice to see you had time to post to this thread, I'm sure you are on your way down to PTSB headquarters to show them the error of their ways. Capitulating to the Central Bank of Ireland, what are these guys at, they are letting down the whole team. The house of cards is about to fall. Maybe your bank next!

As for the Financial Ombudsman, he adjudicated in relation to Danske Bank customers with the exact same complaint, that being overcharging between February 2009 and November 2011, quess what, he came to different conclusions depending on the correspondance from the complainant. The substantive issue however was the same, so much for the Financial Ombudsman.

As for tricking conspiracies, if the C.B.I. refer to this in their final report on the matter, the High court will have no option but to conclude it did happen. Then Borrowers can seek aggravated damages.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

Asphyxia

Guest
Andy836,

You must be somewhat concerned of how events at PTSB have unfolded, but nice previous post, trying to low ball PTSB customers. Should be proud of yourself.
 

matan

Frequent Poster
Messages
68
Peteb are you joking me!!!! "An easier life of it", less fighting, cant speak for the people who have been living in a bubble for the last few years and will get a nice letter soon but I for one have been fighting for the past four and a half years through PTSB and the FSO, have had sleepless nights and financial worries so I don't think your comments are very fair!
 

Sarenco

Frequent Poster
Messages
5,379
Technically they weren't being overcharged. The Borrowers freely accepted the standard variable rate when they sought to break their fixed rate as it was cheaper than the fixed rate they were on. The high court case turned on whether or not PTSB had an obligation to inform the Borrower that they would lose their tracker option if they broke early. This ascribes a level of fiduciary care on behalf of the Bank toward the consumer with which I disagree - effectively absolves the consumer of responsibility (but everything in Ireland is someone elses fault so I don't see why this should be any different). I think this is a dangerous precedent to set but it is done & dusted now.
Hi Andy

I don't necessarily disagree with your points in relation to the quantum or calibration of the proposed compensation but I think you might be overstating the scope of the High Court judgment somewhat.

Justice Hogan held that the FSO was entitled to conclude that a retail bank should properly alert its customers - if only in the most general terms - of the potentially serious adverse consequences of a particular decision, especially where it seems clear that those customers were seeking advice and guidance from the bank's mortgage advice centre and that these are standards that a modern retail bank might reasonably be expected to uphold. It's certainly an important ruling but it falls a long way short of imposing a fiduciary standard on banks.
 

George13

Registered User
Messages
21
I think we need to be careful not to judge our offers in terms of being happy as that is subjective - some people think some amounts of money are huge while others would consider them tiny. We need to sit down and do the sums on what we were entitled to and if we are not able to do that engage somebody who is good with excel spreadsheets! This is important not just for each person but for the group as a whole and especially those who will continue with the fight as if some people just accept without much thought it will weaken everybody's case. My fear is those who are not communicating here, how do we get publicity to make people think about their offer, not just blindly accept? I remember people getting refunds for mis-sold mortgage protection and they never questioned the quantum of the refund.
 
D

Descart

Guest
Sarenco,

I agree with you in this instance, however having said this, if the personnel working in PTSB mortgage advice centre have Q.F.A. ( qualified financial advisor ) diplomas, then it could be argued that they did indeed dispense advice on behalf of the bank and therefore the bank satisfies the conditions necessary to owe a fiduciary duty of care to the customer. Sometimes, in certain circumstances, inhouse training can backfire on the employer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Andy836

Frequent Poster
Messages
372
Hi Andy

I don't necessarily disagree with your points in relation to the quantum or calibration of the proposed compensation but I think you might be overstating the scope of the High Court judgment somewhat.

Justice Hogan held that the FSO was entitled to conclude that a retail bank should properly alert its customers - if only in the most general terms - of the potentially serious adverse consequences of a particular decision, especially where it seems clear that those customers were seeking advice and guidance from the bank's mortgage advice centre and that these are standards that a modern retail bank might reasonably be expected to uphold. It's certainly an important ruling but it falls a long way short of imposing a fiduciary standard on banks.
Hi Sarenco,
  • I don't agree.
  • A Borrower is a lending customer of a Bank.
  • They are not paying the Bank for "advice".
  • This issue turned on a legal term in the mortgage document - surely the onus was on the Borrower's legal representative to "advise" the Borrower.
  • On the matter of whether the Borrower was actually seeking "advice from the bank" I don't think this was ever seriously argued (I could have missed it in the judgement though). As was noted in the judgement, the error on PTSB's system (allowing a free break) was actually getting a lot of attention online on consumer advocacy forums. Were these people getting their advice online and simply going to the Bank to execute orders? How many of the customers actually asked the Bank for "advice"? PTSB's lack of phone records is their undoing here.
  • As to it falling short of imposing a fiduciary standard on the Bank - it don't agree. The Court found that the Bank was obligated to proactively provide additional information to the Borrower relating to potential downside risk from taking a short term decision. As mentioned the Bank is not being paid for this advice. Where does this obligation stop? What other information should the lender be obligated to provide? Should the Lender have advised that technically the SVR could be at some stage below the tracker rate? How far into the future does the advice have to look? I think this case has the potential to open up a can of worms.
Quote below from the Ombudsman Report - Healy Appeal

  • "The impact of availing of the variable rate at that point with the effect the complainants were permanently losing the tracker rate, depriving them of a lower rate at a later stage, should have been discussed with the complainants"
Does the same thing apply to a customer switching into a fixed rate? i.e. are the Bank obligated to tell them that short term interest rates may fall? What if the ECB rate had sky rocketed and went above the fixed rate? Highly unlikely & a largely irrelevant point but where does it end - how many possibilities do they have to hammer out?

So our differences in summary
- I don't think it is clear the Borrower's were seeking advice or guidance,
- I don't think it is the Bank's place to advise a Borrower on a legal term in a credit agreement to which they are party


As to Asphyxia's reference to "QFA". That is an industry mandated qualification required by the regulator of a Bank employee who may discuss a financial product with a consumer. It does not confer any advisory relationship.
 
Last edited:

Sarenco

Frequent Poster
Messages
5,379
Andy

I think you may have misunderstood me.

Acting as a fiduciary has a specific legal meaning and I'm simply pointing out that Justice Hogan did not find that the bank was acting in a fiduciary capacity (he deals with this specific point in some detail in his judgment). I'm was simply reporting his actual finding without seeking to comment on same.

I agree that this ruling may well have important long-term consequences but it is not correct to say that Justice Hogan found that the bank was acting in a fiduciary capacity. Such a finding really would have profound consequences!

It probably doesn't need to be said, but I can see absolutely no basis for Asphyxia's assertion that a bank could be argued to be holding out employees with a QFA designation to be legal advisors.
 
D

Descart

Guest
Fiduciary may occur, it has been argued, in these contexts, banks being more vulnerable where private customers are concerned:-

  • If the customer expects advice to be given, even where contrary to the bank’s interests;
  • If advice is expected and the bank’s interest is represented to be formal or nominal;
  • If the bank, while it is expected to act in it’s own interest, has created the expectation that it will otherwise advise in the customer’s interest (e.g. on the wisdom of the customer’s borrowing);
  • If the bank advises or acts for two customers in their transactions with each other.
Andy836

What does A stand for in QFA ? answer adviser.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

peteb

Frequent Poster
Messages
1,630
Peteb are you joking me!!!! "An easier life of it", less fighting, cant speak for the people who have been living in a bubble for the last few years and will get a nice letter soon but I for one have been fighting for the past four and a half years through PTSB and the FSO, have had sleepless nights and financial worries so I don't think your comments are very fair!
Matan, search me on this site. I had a tracker with Ulster Bank that I had to fight tooth and nail to get back. Tell me how your fight was different to mine?
 

diver

Frequent Poster
Messages
179
And what about the rest of us that had issue and werent with PTSB?? Compensation isnt the standard route. But yet we all had the same trials and tribulations. In fact PTSB customers probably had an easier life of it as it was highly publicised and therefore required less individual fighting! If you lost your home, then yes I see the point. If you moved to another provider, then yet. But still with PTSB, no.
Peteb are you joking me!!!! "An easier life of it", less fighting, cant speak for the people who have been living in a bubble for the last few years and will get a nice letter soon but I for one have been fighting for the past four and a half years through PTSB and the FSO, have had sleepless nights and financial worries so I don't think your comments are very fair!
Matan, search me on this site. I had a tracker with Ulster Bank that I had to fight tooth and nail to get back. Tell me how your fight was different to mine?
Matan,

Peteb did indeed have to fight Ulster Bank to have his tracker restored...only for peteb and others on this site, I wouldn't have thought to question my own mortgage. I did, thanks to AAM users and won my case with Ulster Bank. I had overpaid by €31,000. It also cost me a considerable sum to get this overpayment back from Ulster Bank. Did Ulster Bank offer me any compensation for stress, financial worries for the 6 years that I was overpaying? NO!! Did they offer to pay any fees I incurred in taking this case against them? NO!!! As peteb rightly said (and Brendan on another thread), compensation IS NOT the norm. Most banks have been found to be overcharging customers in some shape or form over the last few years, these 2,000 PTSB customers are just the latest in a very long list gone before them.
 

Andy836

Frequent Poster
Messages
372
Andy

I think you may have misunderstood me.

Acting as a fiduciary has a specific legal meaning and I'm simply pointing out that Justice Hogan did not find that the bank was acting in a fiduciary capacity (he deals with this specific point in some detail in his judgment). I'm was simply reporting his actual finding without seeking to comment on same.

I agree that this ruling may well have important long-term consequences but it is not correct to say that Justice Hogan found that the bank was acting in a fiduciary capacity. Such a finding really would have profound consequences!

It probably doesn't need to be said, but I can see absolutely no basis for Asphyxia's assertion that a bank could be argued to be holding out employees with a QFA designation to be legal advisors.
You're right. I was mixing fiduciary care with duty of care.
 

matan

Frequent Poster
Messages
68
Point taken diver i havnt read peteb's previous posts but i will do so. My point was not about compensation, i am well aware that is not the norm with banks but i have been fighting this long and hard and thats the point im making, it has not been easy!
 

Sarenco

Frequent Poster
Messages
5,379
You're right. I was mixing fiduciary care with duty of care.
Well, yes, but the High Court didn't actually find that PTSB owed its customers a duty of care either!

Justice Hogan simply held that the FSO was entitled to arrive at certain conclusions in a particular context.

I appreciate that this sounds terribly pedantic but bear in mind that the FSO is not a court of law. When dealing with a particular compliant, the FSO is required to act in an informal manner and according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the complaint without regard to technicality or legal form.

I'm not saying that a bank would never be found to owe a customer a duty of care in any circumstances - I'm simply saying there was no finding in this regard in this particular case.
 
D

Descart

Guest
Diver,

Of course a financial institution is not going to voluntarily offer you compensation, that does not mean you are not entitled to same. The costs incurred by you to get the overcharging returned are refundable , whether through arbitration with the bank or by redress through the courts. Ulster bank legal dept know this, so write them a letter asking for them to outline their proposals on how they will refund the expenses outlayed. ( statute of limitation applies in this case (6 years)). Whether compensation is the norm or not, is not the question that should be asked, whether you are legally entitled to compensation or not, is the question. In your particular case, you would definitely be entitled to recover all costs incurred, associated with getting Ulster bank to correct their overcharging to your account. The question of whether you are entitled to compensation is best decided upon by your solicitor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Descart

Guest
Sarenco,

It has been well decided in law that all banks owe a duty of care to their customers, you know this. (Unless the customer signs a disclaimer form for a particular banking product.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sarenco

Frequent Poster
Messages
5,379
Sarenco,

It has been well decided in law that all banks owe a duty of care to their customers, you know this. (Unless the customer signs a disclaimer form for a particular banking product.)
Please do not misrepresent my posts. I was very clear that I was simply reporting on Justice Hogan's specific findings in this particular case and nothing more.

I have no desire to enter into another futile debate with you on your wild legal theories.
 
D

Descart

Guest
Sarenco,

I think you are confusing wild legal theories with the settled legal position in this Country, but in fairness you were probably only trying to give your opinion on Justice Hogan's findings. Be less tetchy
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sarenco

Frequent Poster
Messages
5,379
No, I was not "trying" to give my opinion on Justice Hogan's findings. I simply reported on the actual finding, nothing more.

Again, I would ask you to please stop misrepresenting my posts.
 
D

Descart

Guest
Likewise, and please do repeat on this forum that any of my posts are wild legal theories, otherwise I will have to report you. My post are for consumers, confronted by disingenuous banks who are, in the main part (as PadKiss referred to ), altering the terms and conditions of borrower's loan agreements and then seeking to enforce same. Shame on them. The posts are not for you or your agenda, but for the consumers affected by the bank's actions. See below:

FBI Reports 80% of Mortgage Fraud Committed by Lenders
When most people think of mortgage fraud, they think of a clever borrower conning an unwitting banker into extending him a loan he cannot afford. But this isn’t really how fraud usually works in the mortgage business. According to the FBI, 80% of mortgage fraud is committed by lenders.

The same type of behaviour occurred in Irish banks during the Celtic tiger era.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top