Ulster Ulster Bank at Oireachtas Finance Committee Thursday 9th May

Reminder this is due to commence shortly.

As per the statement by Jane Howard:

They do not anticipate any additional tracker mortgage impacted customers being added to the list.

They have made compensation and redress payments to all affected tracker mortgage customers.

Usual lip service/apologies.
 
Last edited:
€120 million paid out to the 31st of March.
€297 total provision for the tracker examination is split 50:50 on the cost of redress/compensation:cost of administration, operational costs etc. Doesn't appear to include provision for the fine from the Central Bank.

Unfortunately I've lost the audio stream on my app. Would appreciate any updates from Pearse Doherty onwards.
 
Ombudsman has upheld 5 complaints for more compensation than the amount awarded by the Appeals Panel

The Ombudsman has not upheld any cases where the complaint was about the person not being in scope. (Check the transcript - I think that this is what he said.)
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Ombudsman has upheld 5 complaints for more compensation than the amount awarded by the Appeals Panel

The Ombudsman has not upheld any cases where the complaint was about the person not being in scope. (Check the transcript - I think that this is what he said.)
Click to expand...
No indication of how many he has reviewed in total though?
 
If 5 complaints to the Ombudsman have resulted in higher compensation EVERY person should appeal the compensation amount. The Ombudsman is slow but free. No downside to doing it and providing a detailed rationale for your particular case. IMO the standard compensation amount for many (not the repayment amounts) are disgracefully low.

It’s good to hear that there is Ombudsman decisions as this is the only place I’ve ever read that a tracker related decision has been made. Hopefully plenty more to come across all the backs and the published decisions in July will be interesting.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Ombudsman has upheld 5 complaints for more compensation than the amount awarded by the Appeals Panel
Click to expand...
My understanding of this statement is that he upheld the appeals panel decision rather than the complainant. Can this be clarified ?
 
Upheld 5 complaints - amount of compensation

Did not uphold any complaints - scope

My understanding of the above is that 5 cases went the way of the borrower.

If course the video will clear it up. Either way with “upheld” and “didn’t uphold” language user one group had Ombudsman decisions against the bank.

Interestingly all the papers just pick up on NPLs and loan sales rather than Ombudsman decisions. If Ombudsman is finally saying no we don’t agree with compensation amounts this should be a bigger story.
 
Last edited:
Are these cases deemed out scope of the investigation from day one ?

Or ones included in the scope but not yet returned to tracker rate. Didnt think appeals of this nature were that far down road with ombudsman
 
It starts 108 mins on the website video. 113 answers our discussion.

The 5 customers appeals on compensation were rejected by the bank and then rejected by the panel. Then the ombudsman decisioned in favor of the customer.

This is is huge in relation to the process and shows the appeals panel is certainly not fit for purpose in certain cases. This should be a huge story in the media. We now know despite the central bank investigation and the independent appeals panel the Ombudsman still needs to step in to set things right and make correct compensation.

All compensation levels across all the banks should be sent to the Ombudsman.
 
Last edited:
The video is up on the archive now.
Pearse Doherty got Mr Stanley to agree that the approximate level of compensation for all customers is €20 million - compared to the overall cost of €297 million. There was huge emphasis on the appeals mechanism being there to assist customers who are unhappy with compensation.
They will (apparently) examine individual circumstances before going to appeal. (put in brackets as that has not been my own personal experience, nor that of @notabene either I believe)

10 cases had gone to the Ombudsman for appeal subsequent to Appeals panel findings. The Ombudsman found in favour of the customer on 5 occasions.

So after going to the appeals panel, 50% of referrals to the Ombudsman have been upheld. WOW.
 
Dpdp01050842 said:
It starts 108 mins on the website video. 113 answers our discussion.

The 5 customers appeals on compensation were rejected by the bank and then rejected by the panel. Then the ombudsman decisioned in favor of the customer.

This is is huge in relation to the process and shows the appeals panel is certainly not fit for purpose in certain cases. This should be a huge story in the media. We now know despite the central bank investigation and the independent appeals panel the Ombudsman still needs to step in to set things right and make correct compensation.

All compensation levels across all the banks should be sent to the Ombudsman.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation but agree it's a big deal. See my comment above for the exact circumstances. The publication of the rulings in July will really tell a tale.

Anybody who is going through the appeals process at the moment should put their decision making on hold pending the publication. That is to say, if you are considering a ruling by the appeals panel, don't accept or decline it yet.
 
Yes, I think July will be incredibly interesting and will put all the banks back from where they would like everyone to think they are on the process. It will look bad for the central bank agreed appeals process.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
The Ombudsman has not upheld any cases where the complaint was about the person not being in scope. (Check the transcript - I think that this is what he said.)
Click to expand...

I can't see how a borrower can make a fully informed complaint to the Ombudsman about not being in scope / being in scope but deemed not impacted by the bank, until the Central Bank completes it's review and issues it's final report. The goalposts have moved a lot since this whole saga began and you wouldn't know what might arise in the next few months.
 
@SaySomething - you are correct, absolutely wasn't my experience - tried my damndest to sort it out between us last year, led up the garden path by the bank at each attempt, bank issued a final response letter in a take their ball and go home action, solicitors letter and instruction from the finance committee didn't move them either - they also reverted to telling outright lies to the panel saying I had refused to accept original tracker in their submission. Will be interesting to see what comes of the appeal panel - they did mention yesterday making further recommendations and that these can also go to the ombudsman if they can't remediate far enough within their scope - good to see these are being taken seriously by the FSPO

Consdering the level of impact and number of customers 20 million doesn't seem too much on the part of the bank to have spent on Compensation when you consider they earned 166m last quarter
 
Last edited:
I cant see the video on the link posted by Brendan. Can anyone point me in the right direction please?
 
Thanks
Im afraid to say Jane Howard and the UB website is not correct. Im in scope and whilst an offer was made in Feb, Im still to be paid my R and C!
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20190513-220647.png
    Screenshot_20190513-220647.png
    318.8 KB · Views: 429
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top