I feel very strongly that ordinary people in Ireland, the UK (with the GRG scheme) and the USA are being hookwinked by a banking industry. The Central Banks have not yet demonstrated they are on the side of the people in any of these jurisdictions.
In the tracker appeal I have seen how the banks are engineering to minimise their exposure, which is their right.
You're right Brendan that it will take a High Court ruling or possibly an Ombudsman decision to test this. I must admit I expected a different response having posted what I have, but realise you may have experience of basement keyboard have a go heroes.
RedOnion - I'm unsure why the Parnter would 'go to the papers' when I am the one who discoverd this and funded an independent expert to prove the method. I have explained things simply, and given some background, I cant help if you dont believe me. I can do nothing about that. People will make up their own minds.
Perhaps I was naive in thinking to bring it to peoples attention on an internet message board. In the last 24 hours both you and Brendan have effectively called me a liar and untrustworthy.
I've corrected your calculations in my post.
Brendan, I've never posted to this board before this last week. I've been stuck in Ireland since COVID 19 lockdown and felt I should share to help people. I've not offered any pseudo legal advice. Can you send me a PM with a link, thats worrying.
Hi TomTom,
Just a small bit of background because it may be relevant. I am an accountant and I got the actual spreadsheet that AIB used to calculate my refund. Under the Central Bank guidelines a person is entitled to a soft copy. AIB tried to fob me off with a PDF but I eventually received the spreadsheet with all the formulae etc.
I feel their calculations are incorrect and I'm not sure if it is the same reason as you do.
AIB calculated two scenarios one showing what actually happened and the other showing what should have happened i.e. how much one should have repaid. However just imagine if someone was in arrears in the actual scenario by not making a payment for one month in 2012. However in the "what should have happened scenario" they, in AIB's model, are not credited with any repayment even though cumulatively, at that point in time, they would have overpaid their mortgage. In the" what should have happened scenario" they would be charged interest of 4% in 2012 for this deemed non payment and it would accumulate on their loan. I think the model should assume cumulative payments actually made are utilised against the what should have happened scenario. This would result in a reduced refund in cash but a higher reduction in loan balance.
The TVM calculation does not compensate for this as the interest rate is lower than the interest charged on the mortgage for the assumed non repayment.
I hope everyone can understand what I mean.
I also agree with you that the TVM is based on an incorrect interest rate. AIB conveniently utilise their deposit rate however for example if one has marginal borrowing on a personal loan at 9% for example during the period of over payment then maybe one would have a solid argument that the TVM should be based on this rate. I also feel the court interest rate of 8% should be a basis. In a pinned tweet I think Jim Stafford sets this out too.
Brendan references above that the BOI calculation is incorrect and again from memory, (subject to correction), I think this relates to the fact that BOI refunded overcharged interest versus reducing the loan balance?? Anyway, I recall reading the Central Bank's "Principles Of Redress" where it sets out how the calculation of redress should be carried out. Again from memory I re-read and re-read it last year and there was ambiguity as to whether the BOI interpretation was correct. In effect this would mean that everybody redressed by AIB, and most other banks, would be refunded more money and charged a tracker rate for same.
TomTom - is what you are saying similar?