Ms Derville Rowland:

We have looked at this case and found no basis to force the lender to include them for redress and compensation. That is disappointing for the 200 people who are affected by this. There are many different customer journeys, even with employees of the same bank, that will have different factors to be taken into account. I will not set out the basis of our decision in writing to these customers. In fact, it might not be helpful to them if I were to do so. We work at the system-wide level and it is important that they seek their answers from the lender about the basis of that decision.

I did not mean to observe anything other than the fact that the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman has a set of statutory bases upon which it can make a decision. I do not recall them now, but they are entirely different from ours. Many parts of the system have different roles and they work differently but in complement with each other. My point is no more or less than that.

The Stop the Harm approach is a protective approach we use. I am glad the Deputy thinks it is a good idea. We think so as well. It is a filter that must be applied whereby when a decision is being taken about whether somebody is affected, one takes care not to make things worse for the person until that decision has been made. If one decides that the person is affected, one keeps making sure that one does not make things worse for the person, but if one is sure that one's decision is that they are not affected, one has discharged one's obligation to apply that principle. From our perspective, the Stop the Harm principles have been applied in this context because the decision from where we sit at present is that we have no further basis to challenge for those customers. I understand that they are disappointed with that outcome.

There were 2 million accounts put into this. Some 100,000 accounts were considered and many wide and varying sets of circumstances were included. Not everybody who would wish to be included has been. I believe I am correct in that we have met representatives of this group of customers and I understand their disappointment. I cannot get into discussing specifics as it is a matter for Bank of Ireland to discuss that with the individuals, but there are cases where there is no customer facing information, where no promise of a tracker was made, where there is no promise of a tracker in terms of the contract and there is no basis upon which the Central Bank can legitimately push for people.