High Court orders financial ombudsman to revisit ruling on architect’s bank loan dealings
Mr Justice Kevin Cross found “serious and significant errors” in how the ombudsman arrived at his decision in May 2011 to reject three of four complaints made by Roisin Hyde, and directed the ombudsman to reconsider the matter. The judge stressed he had no view on the merits of the case, which that was an issue for the ombudsman.
Ms Hyde said she was offered a loan facility of €965,000 in March 2007 to buy and renovate a property — €715,000 to buy the property and €250,000 for renovation.
The €715,000 was drawn down in April 2007 but repayments were not debited from her account and a disagreement ensued with BoI over whose responsibility it was to set up a standing order or direct debit for repayment. Ms Hyde complained to the ombudsman, and also said BoI had not paid the €250,000 agreed for renovation, causing her severe financial hardship.
BoI argued the letter of offer to Ms Hyde was for €715,000, that she made no application for an additional €250,000 and no letter of offer for that additional sum was issued.
In his May 2011 finding, the ombudsman said he was unable to find BoI was wholly responsible for missed payments.
The “sole glitch” in BoI’s service to Ms Hyde arose from its failure to follow her express instructions, he ruled.
In granting Ms Hyde’s challenge, Mr Justice Cross ruled the ombudsman should have held an oral hearing. Ms Hyde’s central complaint was that she had a verbal agreement with BoI to lend €965,000 but it only provided €715,000, Mr Justice Cross noted.
That issue could only be resolved by an oral hearing and the ombudsman’s failure to do hold one was significant error, he found.
He also ruled the ombudsman erred in relying solely on documents to conclude Ms Hyde must have seen correspondence from BoI concerning the loan repayments. An oral hearing on that issue, and whether the bank failed to reach a reasonable compromise with Ms Hyde, was warranted, he said.
