The limits of your powers? Would you like to comment? Do you want more powers?
The legislation in August 2013 was not retrospective
We have power for any events since then, but not for any trackers as they happened before that.
So any new powers would not help.
We did have the power to produce the reports. But the compensation is from our moral suasion - We told them: "You are better off doing this on a voluntary basis, or else you will be dealing with the FSO and the courts"
Rowland: We developed our approach from the ptsb investigation. We have a lot of powers. We have used the 2013 act for information gathering purposes.
An enormous exercise - 2 million accounts. (How is there 2m? No wonder it's taking so long.)
Phase 2 deadlines have been met, but we weren't always happy with the results.
Dealing with the impact on people at the end of the process was the wrong way around.
Repossessions of those affected were put on hold in case they were contaminated.
We demanded that any time bar issues would be put in abeyance.
We have a full suite of enforcement powers which have been challenged in the courts 5 times.
We have encouraged the banks to put consumer protection at the heart of their culture - irrespective of the legal requirements.
To propose that there would be no appeal is unacceptable.
The prevailing rate of AIB 3.67% and ptsb 3.25% ? If the bank determines that they were affected, but put on the high rate.
Is that a live issue for you with AIB and ptsb?
Lane: We can't name. In general, these issues are fully within what we are looking at.
Regardless of what the banks decide, those affected can go to the Ombudsman or the Courts Service.
McGrath: Is that issue in scope
Lane: Absolutely is something we are looking at.
McGrath: two lenders have not identified cohorts as being affected
Can you give us examples?
Lane: Two levels
1) When did you take out the tracker? Was it april 2006 or May 2007? The bank says that there is no issue. WE say that they are. (Sounds like the AIB pre 2006). And could include scenarios where people have switched lender.
I'm sorry for asking what some may think is a silly question but I don't understand.
If they have no power pre 2013... which was when most of the damage was done... how can they refer you back to ombudsman that already said no to you. I'm hoping I got it wrong as that couldn't make sence can anyone enlighten me???