Mr. Padraic Kissane:

Different banks have different levels of behaviour and important distinctions have to be made. Some banks did it deliberately. Deliberate changes were made to their mortgage systems. That I know. In regard to why, the reasons were extant for every bank, namely, trackers were costing money. It was a short-term cost, by the way; trackers are freely available in the UK as I sit here today. They are not a product that has suddenly vanished. If I was advising the banks, I would suggest applying a floor in respect of trackers below which the rate could not go. That would probably have solved a huge issue.

We are moving into the area of the criminality of this and to be honest, I have concerns about some lenders and how they did it and the deliberate nature of it. However, more of the concerns are about how they have resisted it. For example, AIB is stating one position about AIB customers and that it was a natural fallout, yet EBS homeowners are all sitting in listening today - I know lots of them are - and not one of them is back on a tracker. They got the wrong form. The wrong form for whom? I find it astonishing that the wrong forms are always in favour of the bank.

There is a rule of law here. If the documentation is not clear, the rule is that it should favour the lesser party, and the lesser party should be and is the customer. There is a lot more I could say on the issue but I do not think it would be fair in the middle of the investigation with lines of communication open. As a warning to the banks, I would say that I have a lot more information than I am stating. The Central Bank has been informed and is aware. It has told me it is absolutely accepting and working with the information I am submitting. Obviously, it has to go and prove it. For example, here is the KBC report I sent to the Central Bank in June 2016. The jigsaw pieces have to be put together here. It tells us everything we need to know.

Mortgages should never have been complicated. They should have been simple documentation and if there is any vagueness, it should favour the customer without question.

This is what is annoying me now, that they are still questioning the vagueness and stating it should slant in their favour rather than that of the customer. It really annoys me because it has been ongoing for nine or ten years.