The High Court has refused Kevin and Joan Quinn’s appeal against a Financial Services Ombudsman determination concerning six Ulster Bank mortgage accounts. Mr Justice Max Barrett declined to grant any of the reliefs they sought, including setting aside parts of the determination or sending their complaints back to the Ombudsman for further consideration.
The Quinns had complained that Ulster Bank charged interest at a rate different from the rate in their loan offer letters and wrongly treated their loans as interest-only for five years before moving them to capital-and-interest repayments. The Ombudsman’s determination of 24 June 2015 found that the Quinns had not been charged above the rates in their mortgage agreements and had been placed on capital-and-interest repayments in accordance with those agreements. It also found that the bank’s explanations about how interest rates operated had caused confusion and uncertainty, and directed Ulster Bank to pay €3,000 compensation for inadequate customer care.
The Quinns brought their statutory appeal under section 57CL of the Central Bank Act 1942. They argued that the Ombudsman should have sought more information from the bank about the interest rates. They also said he had relied on later loan offer letters that, in their view, were not the applicable contractual documents, and had thereby effectively rewritten their agreements.
Mr Justice Barrett reviewed the legal approach to appeals from the Ombudsman, including the standard established in earlier cases and considered by the Court of Appeal. He concluded that precedent required him to apply the existing test: the appellants had to show a serious and significant error in the adjudicative process as a whole.
On the interest-rate complaint, the judge said the evidence pointed to a thorough investigation and disclosed no procedural or other flaw in the Ombudsman’s decision to end the investigation and adjudicate. On both the interest-rate and interest-only issues, he found nothing in the evidence before the court to show that the Ombudsman could not have reached his conclusions on the material available.
The judge acknowledged the Quinns’ concern that the decision might place them in financial difficulty, but said that sympathy did not provide a legal basis for the court to intervene. He declined to make any of the orders sought. The ruling left the Ombudsman’s determination in place; the judgment did not direct any further investigation or reconsideration.