Ms Francesca McDonagh:

The intention of the contracts was to be clear in terms of the obligations of the bank and the expectations of the customer. I have referred to the 20,000 customers who were on a fixed rate mortgage during that period who, even after 2008, still exercise their contractual right to a tracker. However, there were cases where the wrong rate was applied inappropriately and was not what was on the contract, that is, the 0.15% differential, where we had 3,400 cases and there were the 6,000 cases where, whether it was contractually or just in terms of the reasonable clarity of the agreement with the customer or the correspondence or the journey they went through, the view is that we had not done the right thing and they have been included. The examination, as requested and arranged by the Central Bank, is to look at both the contractual and consumer protection requirements and also reasonable customer expectations. When I arrived in my role the board asked me to take a fresh look. The board felt that customer focus had been included and that there was a voice of customer involved as part of the bank's review and work around the examination prior to my arrival. My view is that the customer focus was there, but had not gone far enough. My recommendation was to include the additional 6,000 for a combination of reasons, in some cases contracts but also where there was not the clarity or the reasonable expectations that we would expect.