Where exactly did panel and ombudsman disagree re prevailing rate?

zxcvbnm

Frequent Poster
Messages
292
Out of curiosity, does anyone know the specifics as to where exactly the panel and the ombudsman disagreed re prevailing rate?

I understand they sided with the banks argument in that the prevailing rate would have been 7.9% and therefore higher than SVR, but why did they take that viewpoint when the ombudsman took a different view? What swayed it for either party to take the stance they did ?
 

Metatron

Registered User
Messages
58
Probably, because the head or chairperson of the appeals board has to be a solicitor or barrister and thus would probably know nothing about unfairness, good faith, borrower legitimate expectations etc, They would only know the law and as they say, the law is an ass.
 

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
39,119
The Ombudsman decision was a preliminary decision and as such has not been made public.

The Ombudsman has indicated that he will not be making his decision public until after he has issued a final decision to both sides and the 35 days time limit for appealing to the High Court has passed.

Brendan
 

moneymakeover

Frequent Poster
Messages
541
Out of curiosity, does anyone know the specifics as to where exactly the panel and the ombudsman disagreed re prevailing rate?

I understand they sided with the banks argument in that the prevailing rate would have been 7.9% and therefore higher than SVR, but why did they take that viewpoint when the ombudsman took a different view? What swayed it for either party to take the stance they did ?
Good point

Why was the panel so ineffective?

Questions must now be asked about the panel

What else did the panel get wrong?


Who is in the panel?

Is it BDO who manages the Aib panel?

And Grant Thornton manages the Boi panel?
 

zxcvbnm

Frequent Poster
Messages
292
Yes - BDO for AIB. I agree we must now question the panel entirely. All confidence has been eroded in them as far as I am concerned.

I submitted an appeal to the panel for other properties which I had to sell due to the tracker (AIB accepted the tracker was causal to sale of properties and compensated accordingly).
I had a number of arguments as to why I believed the compensation was not sufficient, not least because it resulted in me going insolvent. I thought the insolvency alone merited additional compensation - but I just got a letter back from panel stating they believed I was compensated appropriately. And they also refused repeated requests for an oral meeting. I thought given the circumstances I at least deserved that.

That one really made no sense to me. Going insolvent directly due to overcharging was a slam dunk in my book and needed to be reflected in any compensation payout. I am now in the process of going to ombudsman on this issue (along with the other arguments I presented, looking for additional compensation)
 
Last edited:

TrackerThieves

Frequent Poster
Messages
129
Good point

Why was the panel so ineffective?

Questions must now be asked about the panel

What else did the panel get wrong?


Who is in the panel?

Is it BDO who manages the Aib panel?

And Grant Thornton manages the Boi panel?
This was a recent thread on here that discussed the panel with a link to who was on the AIB panel
 
Top