Ms Derville Rowland:

We see that as a feature of the banks. This committee will be familiar with the narrative about banks' systems not doing what they should do. It could be that a person got an offer and the bank did not put that person on the right rate for a time or there were other glitches in the system. That occurred in approximately 21% of the cases we caught in the tracker mortgage examination. In approximately 19% of cases, the wrong margin was applied. That might include a person with an offer letter with one rate, which changed in the intervening months before the conclusion of the conveyance, and then the person was put on a slightly different rate for a period. It could be a difference of a few percentage points. Approximately 60% of customers had the wrong product. That is when we talk about a person not getting a tracker. Some of those cases might involve a breach of contract, where a person had a tracker entitlement and did not get it. Others arose from what we would call the customer journey. That is important in consumer protection work. A contract is a very important document. What a customer was led to believe and other information that he or she relied upon is also important. We had to look at some of those very complex customer journeys, where the contract did not give rise to a tracker but because the customer was told something or given information that gave that expectation, we think the bank should do the right thing. That goes well beyond contract law.