Danske bank to close retail customer accounts

ABC101 · 08-07-2014 12:16am

Yes I would expect a N.D. Agreement to be the order of the day.

However the truth always has a habit of getting itself out into the Public Domain!!! Amazing huh???

DorDee · 08-07-2014 5:41pm

ABC101 wrote: »

Yes... not exactly sure what you are referring to when you quote side letter.

I have a side letter for an offset mortgage taken out in September/october 2008 stating Danske will not remove last linked account to cause unwarranted termination.. I am at the investigation stage with Ombudsman now.

yop · 08-07-2014 6:47pm

DorDee wrote: »

I have a side letter for an offset mortgage taken out in September/october 2008 stating Danske will not remove last linked account to cause unwarranted termination.. I am at the investigation stage with Ombudsman now.

You definitely have that do you? Would really help if we could see a copy of it with your details hidden. Will blow their claim out of water.
I need to submit my reply Thurs

DorDee · 08-07-2014 10:14pm

I am away till July 23 and can do on my return. I have provided a copy of the side letter to Ombudsman with my submission..

yop · 08-07-2014 10:21pm

DorDee wrote: »

I am away till July 23 and can do on my return. I have provided a copy of the side letter to Ombudsman with my submission..

Thanks DorDee, if you have then at least we can use that other customers have been provided that same side letter for mortgages in 2008 so that blows that out of the water.

kennM · 08-07-2014 10:52pm

yop wrote: »

Thanks DorDee, if you have then at least we can use that other customers have been provided that same side letter for mortgages in 2008 so that blows that out of the water.

I must go and dig through my mountain of paperwork to see if I have one buried somewhere.

yop · 08-07-2014 10:58pm

I defo don't have it, or at least if I did I dont now

I used another kind souls one to send to the FSO as I presumed everyone got one.

They replied to my complaint saying that "This isn't the customers letter, they were not sent out after 2006".

So if we can prove they did then we have them over the barrel

Jimpopo · 11-07-2014 5:15pm

I can confirm that the 'side-letters' were still being sent out in July 2007. Have spent a good 10 hrs going through files and found it today! It begins with "we are pleased to that you have chosen our offset product...."
The second paragraph states
"This side-letter together with the attached offset mortgage facility letter, the terms and conditions of the offset account(s) in your offset portfolio......"

The termination clause is on page 2 of 2

Hope this helps someone else find theirs

yop · 11-07-2014 5:23pm

Jimpopo wrote: »

I can confirm that the 'side-letters' were still being sent out in July 2007. Have spent a good 10 hrs going through files and found it today! It begins with "we are pleased to that you have chosen our offset product...."
The second paragraph states
"This side-letter together with the attached offset mortgage facility letter, the terms and conditions of the offset account(s) in your offset portfolio......"

The termination clause is on page 2 of 2

Hope this helps someone else find theirs

Wow, class!

I know this is incredibly cheeky, BUT if you could, would you be able to blank out your name and address, and scan in that document, I need the date on it though, does yours have any date?

If you could it would be great, I have to get my reply off to the FSO over the weekend

kennM · 11-07-2014 5:53pm

Ill be cheeky and make the same request : )

yop wrote: »

Wow, class!

I know this is incredibly cheeky, BUT if you could, would you be able to blank out your name and address, and scan in that document, I need the date on it though, does yours have any date?

If you could it would be great, I have to get my reply off to the FSO over the weekend

kennM · 11-07-2014 5:53pm

Ill be cheeky and make the same request : )

yop wrote: »

Wow, class!

I know this is incredibly cheeky, BUT if you could, would you be able to blank out your name and address, and scan in that document, I need the date on it though, does yours have any date?

If you could it would be great, I have to get my reply off to the FSO over the weekend

Jimpopo · 11-07-2014 7:10pm

It is certainly doable BUT I would have to cover the date as it would specifically identify me. The only problem I can see is if you put it in with your FSO letter, they will know it's not yours and This may weaken your argument? I think there's an earlier post that says that Danske wrote back and said it was not an original which weakened that complainants case

yop · 11-07-2014 11:01pm

Jimpopo wrote: »

It is certainly doable BUT I would have to cover the date as it would specifically identify me. The only problem I can see is if you put it in with your FSO letter, they will know it's not yours and This may weaken your argument? I think there's an earlier post that says that Danske wrote back and said it was not an original which weakened that complainants case

Their argument is that no letters were sent after 2006, so whether its mine or not shouldn't make any difference. I want to prove that they did.

kennM · 11-07-2014 11:10pm

yop wrote: »

Their argument is that no letters were sent after 2006, so whether its mine or not shouldn't make any difference. I want to prove that they did.

If that's the extent of their argument they're in trouble. It ultimately boils down to breech of contract. The presence of such a letter or absence for that matter doesn't help them in their argument really.

We have proof that mortgage interest rates were treated differently for standard variable and offset mortgages, we have the original press releases outlining exactly how the product works & they are trying to justify their position on the basis of terms and conditions that were drafted (and not signed by offset mortgage holders) long after the contracts were in place. Speaking personally there is nothing in my t&c's outlining that the terms and conditions may be altered. Now it's just a case of the FSO having the bottle and remit here.....

It'll just take time I suspect.

makeorbrake · 11-07-2014 11:12pm

Jimpopo wrote: »

It is certainly doable BUT I would have to cover the date as it would specifically identify me. The only problem I can see is if you put it in with your FSO letter, they will know it's not yours and This may weaken your argument? I think there's an earlier post that says that Danske wrote back and said it was not an original which weakened that complainants case

So long as its used to demonstrate that the letter was still being sent out by the date indicated on your letter, then that destroys all credibility in what they said - as it clearly demonstrates that they have lied through their teeth.

Furthermore, the assertion would then follow that EVERYONE got those letters AT LEAST up until the date of your letter. I think that's not an unreasonable assumption to reach - and it would be downright bent if they don't reach that assumption.

I'd imagine the others just want to use your letter to demonstrate the above. It's not that they are going to photoshop it and pass it off as an original letter that they claim was sent to them. They have no need to do such a thing. Therefore, this doesn't implicate you in any way.

yop · 11-07-2014 11:15pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

So long as its used to demonstrate that the letter was still being sent out by the date indicated on your letter, then that destroys all credibility in what they said - as it clearly demonstrates that they have lied through their teeth.

Furthermore, the assertion would then follow that EVERYONE got those letters AT LEAST up until the date of your letter. I think that's not an unreasonable assumption to reach - and it would be downright bent if they don't reach that assumption.

I'd imagine the others just want to use your letter to demonstrate the above. It's not that they are going to photoshop it and pass it off as an original letter that they claim was sent to them. They have no need to do such a thing. Therefore, this doesn't implicate you in any way.

Absolutely, I won't be using it or claim that its mine, I just want to blow their point 7 out of the water "No side letters were issued after 2006", so seeing the date on yours and the text that it shows it is the side letter would be much appreciated and it will strengthen my case.
Another poster said they have one from 2008 but won't have it available as away on holidays.

Fred Swanson · 11-07-2014 11:40pm

This post has been deleted.

dolallyoh · 12-07-2014 9:07am

nicky5mx wrote: »

I took mine out in 2005 I think so maybe that is why I received a side-letter ?

Ditto for me. For those of us with the side letters its a good sign that they are worried about them.

robbe · 17-07-2014 11:45am

Documentation received from FSO - unfortunately I don't have a side letter, mortgage taken out after 2006, and the substance of their argument is that the termination is valid as the general terms and conditions governing current and savings accounts permits termination. The facility letter doesnt mention offsetting accounts (it doesnt) therefore do not pass go and do not collect €200.........Strictly speaking potentially a valid argument if you ignore how the product was sold (they have to as it was > 6 years ago), how it operated in substance if not form etc

Am I missing any silver bullets? Obviously I will respond pushing my arguments vigerously but if I were presented with this and asked for a view based solely on the strict terms and conditions I would have to say I'd err on their side

dolallyoh · 17-07-2014 12:00pm

robbe wrote: »

Documentation received from FSO - unfortunately I don't have a side letter, mortgage taken out after 2006, and the substance of their argument is that the termination is valid as the general terms and conditions governing current and savings accounts permits termination. The facility letter doesnt mention offsetting accounts (it doesnt) therefore do not pass go and do not collect €200.........Strictly speaking potentially a valid argument if you ignore how the product was sold (they have to as it was > 6 years ago), how it operated in substance if not form etc

Am I missing any silver bullets? Obviously I will respond pushing my arguments vigerously but if I were presented with this and asked for a view based solely on the strict terms and conditions I would have to say I'd err on their side

Sorry to hear it. Sounds very unfair.

yop · 17-07-2014 12:04pm

robbe wrote: »

Documentation received from FSO - unfortunately I don't have a side letter, mortgage taken out after 2006, and the substance of their argument is that the termination is valid as the general terms and conditions governing current and savings accounts permits termination. The facility letter doesnt mention offsetting accounts (it doesnt) therefore do not pass go and do not collect €200.........Strictly speaking potentially a valid argument if you ignore how the product was sold (they have to as it was > 6 years ago), how it operated in substance if not form etc

Am I missing any silver bullets? Obviously I will respond pushing my arguments vigerously but if I were presented with this and asked for a view based solely on the strict terms and conditions I would have to say I'd err on their side

Those of us without side letters IF the FSO look at each case ignoring the other cases, might be in a spot of bother. Though I do think Danske are worried as they have blatantly lied about the side letters not been sent out after early 2006, which we have proved isn't the case.
If the FSO takes this fact into consideration for ALL cases then we will be ok.

yop · 17-07-2014 12:05pm

Actually one other thing, the TRS, is everyone getting paid theirs? I gave them bank details to send it to but just realized that for June and July they never paid it in!!!!!!
I have contacted them twice through the online messaging but not a word out of them,

kennM · 17-07-2014 12:06pm

robbe wrote: »

Documentation received from FSO - unfortunately I don't have a side letter, mortgage taken out after 2006, and the substance of their argument is that the termination is valid as the general terms and conditions governing current and savings accounts permits termination. The facility letter doesnt mention offsetting accounts (it doesnt) therefore do not pass go and do not collect €200.........Strictly speaking potentially a valid argument if you ignore how the product was sold (they have to as it was > 6 years ago), how it operated in substance if not form etc

Am I missing any silver bullets? Obviously I will respond pushing my arguments vigerously but if I were presented with this and asked for a view based solely on the strict terms and conditions I would have to say I'd err on their side

If memory serves, now its vague here, it's only coming to my mind now and must check my documentation. When the material came out around Danske moving out of retail banking and account closure etc. I believe there was mention in there not to close all accounts on the basis that it would inadvertently cause close the offset..... this could serve the same function as the side letter then? I must have a close read of all that documentation again around account closures.

Hope it helps.

Thoie · 17-07-2014 12:09pm

yop wrote: »

Actually one other thing, the TRS, is everyone getting paid theirs? I gave them bank details to send it to but just realized that for June and July they never paid it in!!!!!!
I have contacted them twice through the online messaging but not a word out of them,

Good question, must go check that. It was supposed to be paid into the current account that I'm now using to feed the mortgage. They're still in a bit of a huff because I refused to set up a DD (I have a standing order set up instead). Does anyone have the Pepper number handy? I definitely have it, it's just possibly at the bottom of one of three piles of paperwork.:o

yop · 17-07-2014 12:12pm

Thoie wrote: »

Good question, must go check that. It was supposed to be paid into the current account that I'm now using to feed the mortgage. They're still in a bit of a huff because I refused to set up a DD (I have a standing order set up instead). Does anyone have the Pepper number handy? I definitely have it, it's just possibly at the bottom of one of three piles of paperwork.:o

Exact same as me. I told to stick their DD. I pay mine in each month.

My reply to the FSO went in, so we will see what comes out of it. They will make a decision now on the investigation I am sure within the month.
I won't be sorry to see the back of it, a lot of sh1T going on including been laid off on top of it, got a new job, but feck me I won't be sorry to see the arse of 2013!!

makeorbrake · 17-07-2014 12:28pm

yop wrote: »

Those of us without side letters IF the FSO look at each case ignoring the other cases, might be in a spot of bother.

If past history is anything to go by, they will ignore other cases.

Is it possible you could obtain that letter via a Freedom of Information request? FOI request should allow you to access any documentation with your name on it.

yop · 17-07-2014 12:30pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

If past history is anything to go by, they will ignore other cases.

Is it possible you could obtain that letter via a Freedom of Information request? FOI request should allow you to access any documentation with your name on it.

Ok, I get you. That would make sense wouldn't it.

Toto Wolfcastle · 17-07-2014 12:32pm

Thoie wrote: »

Good question, must go check that. It was supposed to be paid into the current account that I'm now using to feed the mortgage. They're still in a bit of a huff because I refused to set up a DD (I have a standing order set up instead). Does anyone have the Pepper number handy? I definitely have it, it's just possibly at the bottom of one of three piles of paperwork.:o

1890 221 500

posiedon_regs · 18-07-2014 9:01am

For those with no side letters:

It would seem that you still have a strong argument based on the legal doctrine of reasonable expectations. Since you purchased an offset mortgage, you may have had a reasonable expectation that the contract would allow you offset benefits over the term UNLESS clearly stated otherwise. This clearly applies in this case since the very function of the mortgage as sold was to provide such benefits and even a solicitor (much less a customer) may not have reasonably expected such benefits to be prematurely withdrawn AT TIME OF PURCHASE.

A further difficulty for the lender is that they seem unable to produce the original mortgage contract as they do not seem to have copies of the ORIGINAL offset account terms and conditions. In any event, as far as I am aware, these were never furnished to either the borrower or their solicitor when the mortgage contract was being signed.

In my experience, making your case clearly and succinctly will help with your responses.

robbe · 18-07-2014 9:59am

posiedon_regs wrote: »

For those with no side letters:

It would seem that you still have a strong argument based on the legal doctrine of reasonable expectations. Since you purchased an offset mortgage, you may have had a reasonable expectation that the contract would allow you offset benefits over the term UNLESS clearly stated otherwise. This clearly applies in this case since the very function of the mortgage as sold was to provide such benefits and even a solicitor (much less a customer) may not have reasonably expected such benefits to be prematurely withdrawn AT TIME OF PURCHASE.

A further difficulty for the lender is that they seem unable to produce the original mortgage contract as they do not seem to have copies of the ORIGINAL offset account terms and conditions. In any event, as far as I am aware, these were never furnished to either the borrower or their solicitor when the mortgage contract was being signed.

In my experience, making your case clearly and succinctly will help with your responses.

That's pretty much the route I am down.....not entirely sure if it will be successful and but I'm not going to let them away without a fight - the tone of the response they provided to the FSO was amusing in its arrogance I must say. In my view anyone with a side letter is on to a winner - I cannot see how the FSO would find in favour of Danske with a letter like that in your possession. Am going to respond, then they have a further period to respond (and presumably I have a further time past this again)...I'll post on here at each point - be useful if everyone else taking an action does the same if for no other reason that to sympathise/slag off!

Danske bank to close retail customer accounts

Comments