Danske bank to close retail customer accounts

kennM

makeorbrake wrote: »

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?

I would tend to agree with you around the 21 days decision time. It is an incredibly short turn around time if you wish to take legal advice, prepare papers, etc. for serving to high court. I know for personal injuries cases you have 2 years from date of accident.

And as you rightly point out you can loose the shirt off your back, the hanger to put your shirt on, the wardrobe to put your shirt in, the room to put your wardrobe in & the house to put the room into!

Not a decision to be taken lightly whatsoever and, I agree, 21 days is a short period here.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Bananna Republic

Folks,

I have had a quick read of the thread; no not all 97 pages ; but it does appear to me that the FSOB has dealt with us all in much the same way. I am possibly into day 7 or 8 with regard to the clock down for my right of appeal to the frick'n High Court.

I was raging about the FSOB decision. The U turn offer by Danske (that we are now being asked to accept again) stated that it was formulated in conjunction with the Central Bank(CB).

This offer materialised out of the blue (yeah right!)in the middle of the adjudication process so there was definitely contact behind the scenes which none of us customers were privy to. One would imagine that Danske contacted the CB and asked what did it have to do as a min to make this problem go away for them. This is why, in my opinion, there became an over arching onus on the FSOB to revert to this solution because its parent organisation had endorsed this as a viable option.

I expressed this view to MaryRose McGovern, the FSOB chief investigator. She responded in writing stating that there was actually no onus on me to accept the re-issued Danske offer.

So here we are:- there appears to be a bunch of us with a favourable decision from the FSOB; which, if you look at the history and stats around that organisation's decision making, is pretty extraordinary!

The terms of settlement clearly favour the bank 100%; a couple of grand compensation here and there and the Danske reform plan moves on.

I don't know about the high court; if we were very brave (or maybe foolish ) we'd skip the Disneyland Paris trip, pool our resources and take Danske to court funded by their own money; wouldn't that be sweet. Maybe I save it for a movie idea!!!

If there is a hunger to take this further??? the we should establish those numbers and move off this public access forum to discuss a plan of action.

Of course should you accept the offer of a variable rate mortgage there is an on going case that was recently referred back to the FSOB regarding the legitimacy of Danske continually raising its variable rate when the ECB lending rate trend was in the opposite direction. Rather than me explaining this there is a really interesting and informative thread on askaboutmoney dot com.

We could talk forever about this; a class action is called for now surely!?

makeorbrake

Bananna Republic wrote: »

I expressed this view to MaryRose McGovern, the FSOB chief investigator. She responded in writing stating that there was actually no onus on me to accept the re-issued Danske offer.

I bet she did....because how many of you can afford to throw the dice in the High Court!? Her coming back with that quietens 99.9% of you instantaneously.

Bananna Republic wrote: »

We could talk forever about this; a class action is called for now surely!?

Doing so as a group seems like the only feasible way you can minimise the risk - and still challenge it...unless there is one amongst you with exceptionally deep pockets!


Whats the difference between having the FSo decision challenged in the HC as opposed to taking an action directly against Danske for breach of contract (aside from the inequitable 21 day limit)?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

kennM

Bananna Republic wrote: »

Folks,

I have had a quick read of the thread; no not all 97 pages ; but it does appear to me that the FSOB has dealt with us all in much the same way. I am possibly into day 7 or 8 with regard to the clock down for my right of appeal to the frick'n High Court.

I was raging about the FSOB decision. The U turn offer by Danske (that we are now being asked to accept again) stated that it was formulated in conjunction with the Central Bank(CB).

This offer materialised out of the blue (yeah right!)in the middle of the adjudication process so there was definitely contact behind the scenes which none of us customers were privy to. One would imagine that Danske contacted the CB and asked what did it have to do as a min to make this problem go away for them. This is why, in my opinion, there became an over arching onus on the FSOB to revert to this solution because its parent organisation had endorsed this as a viable option.

I expressed this view to MaryRose McGovern, the FSOB chief investigator. She responded in writing stating that there was actually no onus on me to accept the re-issued Danske offer.

So here we are:- there appears to be a bunch of us with a favourable decision from the FSOB; which, if you look at the history and stats around that organisation's decision making, is pretty extraordinary!

The terms of settlement clearly favour the bank 100%; a couple of grand compensation here and there and the Danske reform plan moves on.

I don't know about the high court; if we were very brave (or maybe foolish ) we'd skip the Disneyland Paris trip, pool our resources and take Danske to court funded by their own money; wouldn't that be sweet. Maybe I save it for a movie idea!!!

If there is a hunger to take this further??? the we should establish those numbers and move off this public access forum to discuss a plan of action.

Of course should you accept the offer of a variable rate mortgage there is an on going case that was recently referred back to the FSOB regarding the legitimacy of Danske continually raising its variable rate when the ECB lending rate trend was in the opposite direction. Rather than me explaining this there is a really interesting and informative thread on askaboutmoney dot com.

We could talk forever about this; a class action is called for now surely!?

Simple question.... what is enough? i.e. where do we classify a win?

The only difference between what is back on the table and our original contract is day to day banking and more frequent access to monies. Obviously T&Cs are slightly different. Do I want to gamble potentially everything I own to get that?

Jimpopo

This is a quote from an email from the central bank that I receieved in August of this year ..

"Danske Bank has recently written to approximately 370 mortgage customers who previously held current or savings accounts with the Bank that formed part of an offset portfolio."



I referenced this in August 25 th on this forum (below)

"Just had a letter from the central bank of Ireland and they seem to say that danske are taking heed of customers and agree with their offers to us and finish with......

"The Bank has introduced this additional option following customer feedback and following engagement with the Central Bank of Ireland"

Not looking good if you ask me!"

The only positive I get from re reading this is that there are 370 cases, which, if we were to take a combined action would mean putting in hundreds per case as opposed to thousands ( if we were to contact the majority of the 370 people)

From bitter experience I can confirm that there is no such concept as a class action in this jurisdiction!

kennM

Jimpopo wrote: »

This is a quote from an email from the central bank that I receieved in August of this year ..

"Danske Bank has recently written to approximately 370 mortgage customers who previously held current or savings accounts with the Bank that formed part of an offset portfolio."



I referenced this in August 25 th on this forum (below)

"Just had a letter from the central bank of Ireland and they seem to say that danske are taking heed of customers and agree with their offers to us and finish with......

"The Bank has introduced this additional option following customer feedback and following engagement with the Central Bank of Ireland"

Not looking good if you ask me!"

The only positive I get from re reading this is that there are 370 cases, which, if we were to take a combined action would mean putting in hundreds per case as opposed to thousands ( if we were to contact the majority of the 370 people)

From bitter experience I can confirm that there is no such concept as a class action in this jurisdiction!

One thing you're forgetting to factor in.... of the 370 customers how many will be happy to take a 1% reduction on their mortgage and wave goodbye to their offset mortgage? My honest answer is I don't know but given the hardship in recent times I'd suspect it's a reasonable percentage.

Again, what is objective? To me it seems like a huge risk with not a huge potential upside? perhaps I'm missing something?

Bananna Republic

I am guessing that if you go to the High Court you are challenging the decision of the FSOB not the bank. If what I have learned from the various web sites I visited yesterday is true then the High Court is primarily concerned with the process legalities i.e. how the judgement was formulated (was it legal?) and not necessarily the actual content of the judgement itself!

My view has always been if my complaint was upheld then the bank should start back at scratch and negotiate from there i.e. if your offset portfolio was wrongly removed then it should be reinstated without question and the bank should be forced to negotiate with the customer from there. The contract is between the Bank and the customer not between the FSOB and the customer or the bank.

Danske has never negotiated with me; probably because they knew the system would look after its interests, as it has always done. When a Bank does not negotiate then the system leaves no recourse but for to process a complaint through the FSOB. This is ultimately what the bank wants because it is only too aware that the FSOB operates within exactly the same culture; also the each Bank will have built up relationships with persons in the Central Bank that they can negotiate with and get the inside track.

The FSOB is bound by the legal decisions of the courts and in a way is being hounded by the High Court at the moment on the basis that the judges see it as dysfunctional and no longer serving the purpose for which it was set up.

You now have a massive group of people who, bucking a trend, have had a complaint upheld by the FSOB against a bank. The FSOB has also stated that we are not bound to accepted the re-issued bank offer.

Blabbing tactics on a public form is not the place to start for good negotiation but I would suggest the following course of action that will not cost you a penny; write to the bank and request that, on the basis of a favourable judgement form the FSOB (which is real) it reinstates your offset mortgage portfolio as per the terms of your mortgage contract. Likewise reject the re-issued offer (if you are so inclined) which the FSOB states that you are not obliged to accept.

There may be no term for class action in Irish law but believe you me this will be a class:) action in every sense of the word.

yop

kennM wrote: »

One thing you're forgetting to factor in.... of the 370 customers how many will be happy to take a 1% reduction on their mortgage and wave goodbye to their offset mortgage? My honest answer is I don't know but given the hardship in recent times I'd suspect it's a reasonable percentage.

Again, what is objective? To me it seems like a huge risk with not a huge potential upside? perhaps I'm missing something?

In my own case the objective is to reinstate in full all accounts and offset on the terms we had at the beginning of 2014 which means in our case we can continue to potentially save 142 euros a month on interest.
With rates as is with this reduced rate, how long that will last, we are on course to lose out close on 30k euro.

I know people on this forum who are in line to lose a lot more than that.

Bananna Republic

If you are thinking of accepting the 1% reduction in interest rate ask yourself who is protecting that 1% ...well nobody cos the Bank can make it 4.5% next year; way hey! It will in the commercial sense always be looking to recoup that 1%. As they would say in the Lego movie "it's not personal; it's just business!!!".

If you have 15 years + on your mortgage who's to say that the variable rate in 3 years time won't be 8% or 10% ...like the weather nobody can tell but you still like to be prepared. If you have an offset portfolio with say €50K inside in it then that's pretty good protection.

Bananna Republic

kennM wrote: »

Simple question.... what is enough? i.e. where do we classify a win?

The only difference between what is back on the table and our original contract is day to day banking and more frequent access to monies. Obviously T&Cs are slightly different. Do I want to gamble potentially everything I own to get that?

KennM,

there are vast differences as to what is being offered and what i signed up to first day.

primarily it is a completely different contract with different T&C. Its introduction is unlawful and unwarranted! The FSOB acknowledges in its assessment of compensation that "an individual's mortgage arrangement generally represents his/her largest single outgoing" and thus has a huge affect on the planning of a households long term financial strategy...its not just for Christmas ...it's for life!

Who are Pepper (sounds like a soft drinks company) ???? Why would I give them say €50K of my hard earned cash to sit in an account that i had limited access to and would pay me no interest!!!! The limited access i would imagine would give Pepper scope to trade with my funds and make money from it; which should belong to me!

The whole idea of me picking the offset portfolio was that it tied in my working account so i got benefit for every credit transaction instantaneously.

The notion that i would have to schedule numerous EFTs to put money into an account that i would have no working access to is just daft in this day and age. Tell me of another financial institution that could make you jump through such hoops for you to reap benefit from your savings. No one would have bought this product if it was offered when you when into the bank to purchase first day! ...so why would anyone buy it now! Its nonsense!

I am not sure why you would accept the offer of this appalling product but each to their own. Take care of you.

kennM

Bananna Republic wrote: »

KennM,

there are vast differences as to what is being offered and what i signed up to first day.

primarily it is a completely different contract with different T&C. Its introduction is unlawful and unwarranted! The FSOB acknowledges in its assessment of compensation that "an individual's mortgage arrangement generally represents his/her largest single outgoing" and thus has a huge affect on the planning of a households long term financial strategy...its not just for Christmas ...it's for life!

Who are Pepper (sounds like a soft drinks company) ???? Why would I give them say €50K of my hard earned cash to sit in an account that i had limited access to and would pay me no interest!!!! The limited access i would imagine would give Pepper scope to trade with my funds and make money from it; which should belong to me!

The whole idea of me picking the offset portfolio was that it tied in my working account so i got benefit for every credit transaction instantaneously.

The notion that i would have to schedule numerous EFTs to put money into an account that i would have no working access to is just daft in this day and age. Tell me of another financial institution that could make you jump through such hoops for you to reap benefit from your savings. No one would have bought this product if it was offered when you when into the bank to purchase first day! ...so why would anyone buy it now! Its nonsense!

I am not sure why you would accept the offer of this appalling product but each to their own. Take care of you.

I'm not going to disagree with any aspect of your point. I 100% agree with you. Am I happy about it? NO, is it the same contract we signed up to? NO. Am I prepared to risk everything I own on a high court case to add in day to day banking...... personally? NO. It sucks, YES. Would I trust Danske bank going forward.... about as far as I could throw them! Am I angry about it? ABSOLUTELY. Do I have the capability to offset the bulk of my savings off my mortgage in a zero risk way? YES. For me, it'll do.

What does the future hold? Who knows. Will they hike interest rates in the future and make staying with them more and more unpalatable... I hope not but CERTAINLY wouldn't rule it out. Will I keep a very close eye on the case being taken at the moment disputing interest rate hikes? ABSOLUTELY!

makeorbrake

kennM wrote: »

Will they hike interest rates in the future and make staying with them more and more unpalatable... I hope not but CERTAINLY wouldn't rule it out.

Odds on, they will!

Bananna Republic wrote: »

There may be no term for class action in Irish law but believe you me this will be a class action in every sense of the word.

How do you get round that then?

kennM

makeorbrake wrote: »

Odds on, they will!

They'll do 1 of 2 things I suspect. Forget about them and move onto other areas of the business that need attention and let Pepper administer and forget about it. The admin cost here etc. will be peanuts compared to what it was. Also ramping interest rates against a few hundred mortgages isn't going to make a big bottom line difference..... Or

Ramp rates to push people out.

I'm hoping for the former. Understanding banks and their priorities we are a small annoyance in the grand scheme of things.

How do you get round that then?

Very good point. In theory if we fight one "like a class action" then the ruling will only apply to that fortunate individual. So in effect everyone will have paid the legal fees for one person to get the benefit/assuming they win.

makeorbrake

kennM wrote: »

Very good point. In theory if we fight one "like a class action" then the ruling will only apply to that fortunate individual. So in effect everyone will have paid the legal fees for one person to get the benefit/assuming they win.

I wouldn't be concerned about subsequent cases - as if all cases are - by and large - the same, then surely any subsequent case will go straight through on the back of what went before (assuming the test case is successful).

It's messy if one individual has to put their name down though...and messier to organise others chipping in $...

ABC101

"Always uncertain the future is"

Anybody recognise that quote???

Guys & Gals... far be it for me to tell anybody that to do... but I would not advise going the High Court route. Far too risky. To start contemplating that level of action, you would have to be really really sure, or have absolutely nothing to lose, or have a very wealthy relative / community behind you bankrolling.

Danske do have their hands tied as they gave back their license to carry out retail banking here. So going back to the old days.. it's never going to work.

I would hope that they keep the app going, ebanking etc... that way we can keep a closer eye on our mortgage / pepper offset fund.

I do have sympathy for people who were running a business account and were able to offset enormous funds against their mortgage. I myself only saved 11 or 12 K over the last few years. So I did have some funds... but I was not in the league of 200K offsets or anything like it.

But at the moment... I am paying back more each month... my aim is debt reduction as fast as possible.... that way if I do have to switch from Danske to AIB or BOI etc etc etc.... it will be a smaller mortgage amount.

At my present rate... it is still going to take me well over 10 more years... but I am on it.

I don't want to come across lecturing people here... but IMO, the high Court route is a big No No with flashing red lights. In addition a group of people may say they will provide funds... but that is by no means certain that they will.

Anybody remember Albert Reynolds who took his case to the high Court in the UK many years ago? Remember he won his case... but was awarded only 1 penny. He got absolutely stuffed for costs, I think he was financially ruined. What justice is that?

Law courts are not really about Justice... more like just convincing others that it is not your fault, but somebody else's.

to boot

Does anyone have a response that states the grounds upon which the complaint was upheld by the fso? I think this is critical.

If the grounds stated are "the conduct complained of was contrary
to law" (see page 51 of Central Bank and Financial Services 2004 Act on fso website) this surely means the contract was broken and the remedy for contract breach is restitution of the original contract and or financial compensation and not some 'compromise'.

JimsAlterEgo

to boot wrote: »

Does anyone have a response that states the grounds upon which the complaint was upheld by the fso? I think this is critical.

If the grounds stated are "the conduct complained of was contrary
to law" (see page 51 of Central Bank and Financial Services 2004 Act on fso website) this surely means the contract was broken and the remedy for contract breach is restitution of the original contract and or financial compensation and not some 'compromise'.

Most people think that most certainly Danske would lose any court case, however the cost of taking it is prohibitive and most(if not all) people dont stand to gain enough to warrant taking the chance.

ABC101

I see the ebanking Personal Log on has been withdrawn now.

I was hoping they would keep it going... pity really.

dolallyoh

Has everyone had to sign new direct debit agreements for Pepper or will the old ones suffice?

jwrbs

Is anyone else still waiting for their FSO determination re offset closure? Being told have to wait until new year (although my facts may differ slightly).

kennM

jwrbs wrote: »

Is anyone else still waiting for their FSO determination re offset closure? Being told have to wait until new year (although my facts may differ slightly).

Still waiting for offset a/c to be opened by Danske.... have compensation etc.

dolallyoh

jwrbs wrote: »

Is anyone else still waiting for their FSO determination re offset closure? Being told have to wait until new year (although my facts may differ slightly).

Same here. Circumstances are same as everyone else's. Not worried about the outcome.

jwrbs

Warning to those of you setting up these new offset accounts.
I opened one in response to the first "offer" in August. I have attempted to make 2 withdrawals since and neither has been satisfactory.
1. The first one involved Pepper phoning me, asking me lots of security questions, and then, in effect, asking me was I sure I wanted them to do what I had specifically asked them to do by completing the offset withdrawal form. There was nothing wrong on the form and so they made the transfer. I was told they would be phoning me in respect of every withdrawal request.
2. I sent an identical request in last week (16th) and yesterday receive a letter saying that as it is a joint account both signatories should have signed the form. That is incorrect as I indicated on the opening form that any one signatory could request a withdrawal. And if this was the case of course they had incorrectly paid out on the first withdrawal (and rather than sending me back a copy of the withdrawal form of 16th they sent me a copy of the one they did eventually pay out on - with the one signature).
Perhaps Pepper are merely incompetent rather than being deliberately obstructive, but I would recommend you leave plenty of time to get access to your cash.

dolallyoh

So then, are we all finished with this ?

For me, in the end I got a few quid for the hassle and agreed to take the 1% "deal" to put the affair behind me.

No doubt when I go to look for the deeds ... more funtimes then...

kennM

dolallyoh wrote: »

So then, are we all finished with this ?

For me, in the end I got a few quid for the hassle and agreed to take the 1% "deal" to put the affair behind me.

No doubt when I go to look for the deeds ... more funtimes then...

I'm done for now... got a few quid and offset re-instated...

ABC101

dolallyoh wrote: »

So then, are we all finished with this ?

For me, in the end I got a few quid for the hassle and agreed to take the 1% "deal" to put the affair behind me.

No doubt when I go to look for the deeds ... more funtimes then...

I hear there is a long delay in getting Deeds returned. Stored up in Belfast I believe.

That's not to say they are unobtainable... it's just it takes a while to finally get them returned.

GLA.

RainyDay

ABC101 wrote: »

I hear there is a long delay in getting Deeds returned. Stored up in Belfast I believe.

That's not to say they are unobtainable... it's just it takes a while to finally get them returned.

GLA.

Any suggestions about what to do with the deeds once you get them? How do you keep them safe?

ABC101

RainyDay wrote: »

Any suggestions about what to do with the deeds once you get them? How do you keep them safe?

I believe a solicitor will not store them anymore.

Option 1

Buy a high quality safe... and I mean a High Quality safe, not some of these cheap junk boxes in various stores .... and put them in there. A safe which has to be moved on rollers by at least 2 men.

Option 2

I believe there is a Land Registry office... where you can digitally register your ownership of the property.

Once your deeds are registered.... your paper documents (deeds) are in effect of no value and have no meaning. They are just bits of paper, which if they get lost, stolen or burnt makes no difference.

Its all digital these days!! So I am told!

This is the Link ( I Think)!!

http://www.prai.ie/