Mr. Wim Verbraeken:

Within the cohort of 417 cases that were announced in the October public statement, there were certain cases where, through our forensic review of cases, we had identified that they were not on the rate as per their contract. The large majority, 358 cases, were cases that had been on a tracker rate and then had an agreed change to their mortgage contract in the sense they went on to an interest-only period, and ultimately they rolled off to a variable rate. In October, we determined that the terminology used in the instruction letter for the interest-only period could have been confusing as to its intent and that the customer may have reasonably expected to return to a tracker rate. Although the correspondence stated, in most cases, that the customer would move to a variable rate, we determined that it was not clear to the customer-----