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 ?
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 ?