Were they both BTL at all times, or was 1 possibly considered a PPR? They might have assumed it was on calculation.
Would you actually have been able to service principal payments even if it had been tracker rate?
They were both buy to lets. In fact - i've just looked at the letters again and part of the c. €35k compensation included exactly 25k compensation in recognition the property may not have been sold. (So in effect we got 12.5k each in compensation for forced sale of property resulting in insolvency. Hmmmm..)
But for the 140k one, aside from the usual stuff such as 15% compensation etc, it gives a different sentence re compensation whereby it states
"...compensation for our failure at 11.00% of the interest overcharged….
or an appropriate minimum amount" (Note it doesn't explicitly state it is due to forced sale of property - unlike the letter for the other property.
So it is quite vague by stating "or an appropriate minimum".
Nonetheless, there is quite the discrepancy between the 2 properties compensation given that to me they seem identical cases.
As to whether I would have been able to service principle payments had it been tracker is difficult for me to say. They were sold 5 years ago now. And there was also 2 other properties involved which we own individually. The tracker issue was at the very least a significant contributing reason for the forced sale. (And that's before you take into account we both went insolvent)
That is why I'm enquiring as to what kind of payouts other people got. If this is the norm then presumably there is no point in us appealing. But if this is way less than everyone else in a similar scenarios then I should consider appealing.
Or does anyone know if there is an advisor out there I could consult which would have an idea as to whether this payout is acceptable?