gnf_ireland
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,441
From another thread:
"PTSB paid automatic compensation of 10% of the amount overcharged.
AIB is paying 15% automatic compensation.
This is not an offer. It is not an estimate. It is, in effect, a down-payment."
What do people think if a reasonable level of compensation for the tracker issue as a general principle? Should it be related to the amount the person has been overcharged - i.e. a percentage of this - and if so, what percentage is fair? Should there be minimum and/or maximum amount set ? Should it be based on the duration of the over-payment, and when the bank alerted the person to the issue? Should the amount of calls to the customer, or the customer had to make, come into the calculation.
I accept the general level of compensation will not cover every scenario, and there will need to be some sort of mechanism to appeal this, but with 13,000-20,000 cases to get through, the general level would need to satisfy 80-90% of those.
It would also need to be relatively easy to calculate and validate and be a fair towards the customer.
I was personally subject to a 'bank miscalculation' recently from a foreign bank, and they offered to refund the difference + 8% per year 'interest' as compensation. I thought that was pretty fair, although the duration and amount was much smaller than the tracker issue
"PTSB paid automatic compensation of 10% of the amount overcharged.
AIB is paying 15% automatic compensation.
This is not an offer. It is not an estimate. It is, in effect, a down-payment."
What do people think if a reasonable level of compensation for the tracker issue as a general principle? Should it be related to the amount the person has been overcharged - i.e. a percentage of this - and if so, what percentage is fair? Should there be minimum and/or maximum amount set ? Should it be based on the duration of the over-payment, and when the bank alerted the person to the issue? Should the amount of calls to the customer, or the customer had to make, come into the calculation.
I accept the general level of compensation will not cover every scenario, and there will need to be some sort of mechanism to appeal this, but with 13,000-20,000 cases to get through, the general level would need to satisfy 80-90% of those.
It would also need to be relatively easy to calculate and validate and be a fair towards the customer.
I was personally subject to a 'bank miscalculation' recently from a foreign bank, and they offered to refund the difference + 8% per year 'interest' as compensation. I thought that was pretty fair, although the duration and amount was much smaller than the tracker issue