Danske bank to close retail customer accounts

nicky5mx

The whole thing reeks.......... As usual in this country the small guy takes the pain while the big guys head for the hills laughing. At least I have a side letter so I can feel your pain YOP. Not a good result at all for you.

The FSO should had come down harder on DB. I still stand over my claim that the FSO and DB got together and came up with a solution. Funny that the FSO is more or less forcing us to accept the the DB solution. Another useless statutory body if you ask me.

yop

nicky5mx wrote: »

The whole thing reeks.......... As usual in this country the small guy takes the pain while the big guys head for the hills laughing. At least I have a side letter so I can feel your pain YOP. Not a good result at all for you.

The FSO should had come down harder on DB. I still stand over my claim that the FSO and DB got together and came up with a solution. Funny that the FSO is more or less forcing us to accept the the DB solution. Another useless statutory body if you ask me.

Agreed, I had my reservations on this, the FSO used to be wined and dined by the bWankers during the boom, who says this isn't still happen.
I'm sore about this, robbed by Danske and given the 2 fingers and the so called regulator been toothless. As are all regulators in this country.


Might just stop paying my mortgage now and give the 2 fingers and see what happens.

I'm sure the FSO and Danske boys will be having a drink or 2 now to celebrate.

kennM

yop wrote: »

Danske are appealing the decision? The decision to award some Offset holders their accounts back is it?

Allow me to clarify QUICKLY! .... I was referring to the recent high court case where a Dankse customer complained to the FSO with regards to them increasing interest rates contrary to the clause in contracts which stated something along the lines of "in accordance with market conditions".

The FSO didn't find wrongdoing on Danske behalf in increasing interest rates despite ECB rates dropping as they don't source much of their funding from the ECB.

So the customer took it to the high court and the high court found in favour of the customer and instructed the FSO to revisit the decision. Now Danske and the FSO are appealing THAT high court decision to the appeal court.

Does that make sense???

I don't believe they are taking the offset decision to court... in fact they have re-issued to offer and I've sent off forms etc.

yop

kennM wrote: »

Allow me to clarify QUICKLY! .... I was referring to the recent high court case where a Dankse customer complained to the FSO with regards to them increasing interest rates contrary to the clause in contracts which stated something along the lines of "in accordance with market conditions".

The FSO didn't find wrongdoing on Danske behalf in increasing interest rates despite ECB rates dropping as they don't source much of their funding from the ECB.

So the customer took it to the high court and the high court found in favour of the customer and instructed the FSO to revisit the decision. Now Danske and the FSO are appealing THAT high court decision to the appeal court.

Does that make sense???

I don't believe they are taking the offset decision to court... in fact they have re-issued to offer and I've sent off forms etc.

I get you now. So POTENTIALLY if we had a pot of money to throw at it we could go to the high court and they might rule in our favor and get Danske to offer more money OR they could rule against and burn a large hole in our pocket.

I wonder who was involved in the case you mentioned, as in terms of customer and legal side of it, could be worth a chat with them?
Looking at our case versus theirs I would have thought that they had very little grounds, but obviously not the case.

kennM

yop wrote: »

I get you now. So POTENTIALLY if we had a pot of money to throw at it we could go to the high court and they might rule in our favor and get Danske to offer more money OR they could rule against and burn a large hole in our pocket.

I wonder who was involved in the case you mentioned, as in terms of customer and legal side of it, could be worth a chat with them?
Looking at our case versus theirs I would have thought that they had very little grounds, but obviously not the case.

You're exactly right... from my limited research I understand the customer in question (who took the original case to the high court over the increase in interest rates contrary to the market conditions) has six mortgages with them. (Doesn't sound like your normal family home type of buyer ).

I think we're at the point of, from the high courts perspective, spilling hairs. The primary issue we have now is frequency of access & day to day banking.

High court fees are not to be underestimated. You are EASILY talking not far off €100,000 per day in costs in the high court. If the ruling goes against you and they're awarded costs......

We've got a few € compensation and have our offset back. Danske haven't got what they wanted. We haven't got what we wanted but it's a reasonable compromise I feel. Re-opening offset personally

dolallyoh

yop wrote: »

Ok, well I am fit to be tied.
I decided that since I hadn't heard anything I would make contact so I rang them this morning and since we didn't have the side letter to hand that we have no case, so will not receive a bean, the dirty fkers.
140 quid a money extra been paid to them now for the remaining 17.5 years. Pure fkn farce.

Sorry to hear that Yop, worth having another look for the doc ?

makeorbrake

yop wrote: »

Ok, well I am fit to be tied.
I decided that since I hadn't heard anything I would make contact so I rang them this morning and since we didn't have the side letter to hand that we have no case, so will not receive a bean, the dirty fkers.
140 quid a money extra been paid to them now for the remaining 17.5 years. Pure fkn farce.

Would it be worthwhile to do a freedom of info request?

yop

makeorbrake wrote: »

Would it be worthwhile to do a freedom of info request?

Thats true. I must contact the FSO and see if I can pull up that doc if they will open up my case again, that could be the key.
I'll buzz them now.

Jimpopo

Am tempted to use the pitiful compensation to take out an advert saying that we took on Danske and won and if there's anyone else out there who's in our position to contact the FSO so at least Danske will have to pay out a bit more..

yop

Ok, my only recourse is the high court, I had ample opportunity to do an FOI and get the side letter and my case will not be revisited.

Think I'll just go on the beer.

kennM

yop wrote: »

Ok, my only recourse is the high court, I had ample opportunity to do an FOI and get the side letter and my case will not be revisited.

Think I'll just go on the beer.

Was yours rejected? I didn't have side letter.... and complaint was upheld.

yop

kennM wrote: »

Was yours rejected? I didn't have side letter.... and complaint was upheld.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93209467&postcount=1411

dolallyoh

Have I got this right? :

A. All offset customers whether complained or not have regained the offset via Pepper.

B. Customers who complained and have side letter receive some compensation.

nicky5mx

Good question.......I would have thought that regardless if you have a side letter or not you would at least get the limited off-set through Pepper.

I presume only those with a side letter will get a small few bob compensation for the loss of benefits from April to date. It does seem extremely harsh for people like YOP who have no side letter.

makeorbrake

yop wrote: »

Ok, my only recourse is the high court, I had ample opportunity to do an FOI and get the side letter and my case will not be revisited.

Think I'll just go on the beer.

Do the foi anyway. Surely if they produce that document (of course they could bury it - but if they go down that road and get caught out, it won't end up well for them), you can still write to them and then ask them to do the right thing. If they turn around and refuse, would you not have a clearcut case in the High Court?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

kennM

dolallyoh wrote: »

Have I got this right? :

A. All offset customers whether complained or not have regained the offset via Pepper.

B. Customers who complained and have side letter receive some compensation.

nicky5mx wrote: »

Good question.......I would have thought that regardless if you have a side letter or not you would at least get the limited off-set through Pepper.

I presume only those with a side letter will get a small few bob compensation for the loss of benefits from April to date. It does seem extremely harsh for people like YOP who have no side letter.

That's very harsh... I didn't have a side letter but still ruled in my favour... got offset offer put back on table and a few €. Surprised, perhaps FSO are ruling on each case based upon the individual merits and how you communicated/positioned/supported?

dolallyoh

Yop should still have the actual offset.

yop

We have the same mortgage we had when it was changed last April lads. Same reduced rate.

dolallyoh

Did you receive the offer in the post to keep the offset but via pepper ? AFAIK was for all offset customers.

yop

dolallyoh wrote: »

Did you receive the offer in the post to keep the offset but via pepper ? AFAIK was for all offset customers.

I did indeed. Told them that as the T&C's were poor we were rejecting that and told them to proceed with the case.

I think we just have to accept this now and just be angry with the system. But can't say I am too surprised.

dolallyoh

I don't have any outcome myself yet but overall we won the war.

yop

dolallyoh wrote: »

I don't have any outcome myself yet but overall we won the war.

Ah thats true. Its great that we have driven back a bit. Not exactly where I would have hoped or intended, but such is.

Jimpopo

From various conversations over the last couple of days, I believe ( have been told) that each offer is exactly the same. I cannot understand why the presence of a side letter is an issue for some and not others. Even though they state the decision is final, it isn't, and if you feel that your situation is the same as someone who has been awarded compensation I would bring it to the investigating officers attention immediately.

makeorbrake

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's plain wrong!? How is that equitable?


If there are others amongst you who have not gotten a decision yet but didn't have a side letter, maybe you still have time to get an FOI request in and back - in time??

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Jeff the Cod

Jimpopo wrote: »

From various conversations over the last couple of days, I believe ( have been told) that each offer is exactly the same. I cannot understand why the presence of a side letter is an issue for some and not others. Even though they state the decision is final, it isn't, and if you feel that your situation is the same as someone who has been awarded compensation I would bring it to the investigating officers attention immediately.

How much were the offers?

makeorbrake

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Isnt it interesting that the FSo don't apply the same high standard with regard to timeline ( by comparison, its taking them months to get back to people) as we see here?

This is not an equitable process.

kennM

Jeff the Cod wrote: »

How much were the offers?

Just to clarify terminology here. In my case Danske were instructed to:

• Put the August offer back on the table... with regards the T&Cs they appear better than the T&Cs tabled in August. i.e. re-instatement of the offset mortgage offset account.
• Danske also has to credit the interest you would have earned from the time your capability to offset was terminated to the time of your response. This credit can be credited to an a/c of your choice. This figure is based upon the average of the 12 months offsetting you had prior to Danske termination.
• Compensation for all of the hassle. The compensation would get you a family holiday in Europe, you're not going to go much further on it and it won't be 5 star hotels

makeorbrake wrote: »

Isnt it interesting that the FSo don't apply the same high standard with regard to timeline ( by comparison, its taking them months to get back to people) as we see here?

This is not an equitable process.

Come on... the FSO are like any other organisation where they have a pile of work to get through and the top file comes off each time. To play devils advocate if you were "ahead of the queue" with the FSO and other cases were being fasttracked from behind you to ahead you'd be pi$$ed.

I believe I was one of the first out of the blocks to say no to Dankse and re-start the adjudication process. You can be sure Danske were also learning through each case and adapting their responses just like we have been. Ultimately I'd suspect a similar blanket ruling will apply but the FSO stress that every case is handled on it's own merits.

makeorbrake

kennM wrote: »

Come on... the FSO are like any other organisation where they have a pile of work to get through and the top file comes off each time. To play devils advocate if you were "ahead of the queue" with the FSO and other cases were being fasttracked from behind you to ahead you'd be pi$$ed.

Would I be pi$$ed if cases were not dealt with in rotation? of course. However, why are you stating that in direct response to my post? I don't suggest this in any way, shape or form.

What I do state is the following;

1. They allow 21 days to lodge a case with the High Court. I dont think that is in any way equitable. For the uninitiated, that's a process where you can literally lose the shirt off your back! I think therefore the complainant should be given sufficient time to weigh up that decision. In normal circumstances, whats the statue of limitations on bringing an action? Its certainly not 21 days or anything like it!

2. Whilst considering the above, do the fso apply the same standards to themselves? i.e. how many months have people been waiting for a decision? Is this optimal from a government agency or should there not be an aspiration for a better standard? And yet they can take all that time but the respondent is deprived of the right to take this further if they dont lodge papers within 21 days?