I watched the recorded piece as it was broadcast - I had not seen it beforehand.
It was simply wrong to say he had a rate specified in his contract. Those who had a rate specified, got them. The 300 or so borrowers who were put on the higher rate had the wording "the tracker rate then prevailing" as discussed at length in this thread
PTSB - on expiry of fixed rate, tracker rate not specified
I tried to explain that and correct the error made in the report, so, of course I came across as "dressing it up" on behalf of ptsb. But I don't go on these programmes simply to ignore the facts and abuse banks.
The last line is interesting,If there is evidence?..There seems to be an abundance of evidence on this programme and others that a lot of the banks are guilty of sharp practice at best.
I am one of the 1800 staff affected and the system clearly showed my loans reverting to Trackers at end of my fixed rate in January 2009. When I pointed this out to the bank they claimed that their computer systems took time to adjust to the reality that Trackers were no longer offered!Thanks for the clarification Brendan.
I've watched the programme again with the aid of a pause button.
The clear inference given was that Mr Ryan was entitled to revert to a tracker at a specified margin above the ECB base rate. However, the document presented on screen (as an example) doesn't actually say that (although the voice over strongly implied that it did).
So, you were absolutely correct - RTE misrepresented the factual position. Frankly, I think that's very shoddy journalism and really undermines my faith in the balance of the claims made in the programme - which I found very difficult to follow.
Was the programme suggesting that BOI deliberately changed their systems so that staff members would default onto standard variable rates after their fixed terms expired even though they were contractually entitled to default back to their trackers? That's shocking if true but I don't really know what to believe at this stage.
That's shocking if true but I don't really know what to believe at this stage.
Brendan. Well done last night. You really held it together despite provocation from presenter. Important to state factual situation.
Well done last night to both Brendan and P Kissane. This issue is never going to go away until banks put all who are entitled to trackers back on them at the correct margin in conjunction with the time the mortgage was drawn down.
Does anyone know how the CB investigation of PTSB mortgage book is progressing and when it will be concluded?
Also PTSB have set up a Mortgage Product Review Group led by a Ger Mitchell. What is that going to accomplish??
Hi Sarenco
Let's take the ptsb issue.
The Central Bank is all over them. If a contract says something clearly, then ptsb will not be able to just change it as the report suggested. Borrowers can appeal to the internal Customer Appeals Panel, the Ombudsman and the High Court. So rest assured that where a contract is clear, ptsb is honouring it.
The argument is what does a contract mean when it says "You will be put onto the prevailing tracker rate when the fixed period expires". The Ombudsman has ruled on this. This was not a margin guarantee. The High Court has ruled that the ESIS has no legal standing. If a contract naturally expired in June 2010, the borrower was put on a tracker of 3.3%.
In my view the best chance for Thomas and others is that they should get the prevailing rate when they terminated the fixed rate early as that rate was much lower than when the contract was due to expire.
As I had planned to say on the programme, and I hope I said it, if it is found that ptsb engaged in underhand behaviour, e.g. if they encouraged people to fix or to break a fixed rate to get them off their trackers, then those customers should be given a tracker of no more than 1% margin.
However, I suppose the difficulty arises where a fixed term was broken after Q3 2008, when there was no prevailing tracker rate. In those circumstances, I would have thought the prevailing tracker margin immediately prior to the withdrawal of the product in Q3 2008 would be appropriate.
PTSB did have a prevailing tracker rate. Many fixed rate periods expired on schedule and they were put onto rates at the time. ptsb made up those rates at the time. The people who are getting their trackers back three years later are getting the rate that those who expired naturally got.
There is definitely a real issue here but misrepresenting the factual position is in nobody's interest.
I am also one of the 1800 Boi Staff, my complaint is still with the FSOB. So Brendan do myself an MAXO1 have to find the remaining 1788 staff in order for justice to prevail?
I am also one of the 1800 Boi Staff, my complaint is still with the FSOB. So Brendan do myself an MAXO1 have to find the remaining 1788 staff in order for justice to prevail?
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?