Alleged Fraud by Permanent TSB Ireland

Devrajan

Alleged £339 Million Fraud by Permanent TSB Ireland

Please search in Google and YouTube for 'Windle Stops Swindle'

Thanks

Devrajan

bowlhead99

You mean "£339m is the level of fraud alleged by me, Devrajan, although I can't now get anyone at any of the credible newspapers or TV stations to cover it"
:beer:

I've seen the OP's grievance flying around the internet previously. Synopsis to save everyone googling to watch the youtube video and then having to read around the issue to understand what is being presented in the video and poorly laid out on the campaign website...

Bank calculated interest on its customer deposits on the basis of the minimum balance in the account over the course of the month, as per (we are told by OP in his blog) the trustee savings bank act 1863 rule 18.

The bank paid the interest as per its calculations in line with its rules.

The bank did not make clear in its interest rate advertising that as a result of interest being calculated on the same basis that it had done for the previous century, the AER /annual compound interest could be considered misleading for some customers. An amount of money deposited in an account in a particular month (using a midmonth start and end date for the monthly periods, set by the bank) would not raise the minimum balance for that month and consequently could be in the account some time before it earned interest and that interest started to compound. So the simple interest paid to the account was exactly what it had published based on the 'minimum account balance' rules but the AER was only achievable in certain circumstances depending on when the deposit and resulting interest was actually made.

OP who had closed his account successfully received compensation and allegedly a non-disclosure payment from the bank, but then brought a private prosecution in court.

The prosecution brought by OP succeeded in getting the bank a nominal fine for misleading advertising due to the AER not always being demonstrably correct and/or it not being clear that interest is only paid on the account minimum for a particular period in line with the detailed T&C. The bank subsequently changed its practice to ensure that the AER was obtainable.

OP further alleges (though can't prove) that the bank paid a 'daily rate' interest to its own staff on the same account. He believes TSB pulled the wool over the eyes of the consumer association by saying they followed their standard rules while secretly making up different rules for their thousands of staff.

OP notes throughout his video and website that William Fagan, director of consumer affairs at the time, who didn't do anything much to address the issue after the bank's response satisfied him, is aptly named because it sounds a bit like Fagin who was a fictional baddie in a Charles Dickens novel.

OP alleges that PwC and KPMG were complicit in perpetrating a fraud because when they signed off the accounts each year they might have known the advertising was misleading, even though their duty was to comment on the fairness of the financial statements to the financial records and not to review advertising.

OP attempted to go back to court over a decade later:

In 2006, the learned Justice Hanna considered that the convictions and fines were for misleading advertising, not fraud. I would be of the view that not paying the clearly advertised interest for 35 years is ‘fraud’ in anybody’s language. Though he was technically and legally correct.

and again:

An application by me to the District Court in a further private prosecution, this time for breaches of the Larceny Act, Section 8 of the Consumer Information Act 1998 and Section 27(1) of the Trustee Savings Banks Act was dismissed by Judge James Paul McDonnell on the grounds of abuse of process.

and again almost two decades after OP admits that the advertising had ceased to be misleading following the initial court case:

In 2011 Judge Mella Carroll refused me an injunction against TSB’s misleading advertising on grounds that damages would be an adequate remedy.

Other people looking to go back a decade and get compensation have not been successful:

In 2000 Judge Paul Butler dismissed a civil action taken by Alfie Smyth against TSB on the ground that the sum sought, £8.80 was too small to be heard in the High Court.

OP is on a hiding to nothing still tirelessly trying to promote his grievance and suggests that people who ever banked with the Irish PTSB go to him to get his version of a statement of claim for court action.

He says this would not be statute barred if you base it on a claim of fraud. He does however acknowledge elsewhere in his musings (as I mentioned above) that in 2006 a judge told him that the previous successful court challenge to TSB was for misleading advertising and not for fraud, which he acknowledges is both technically and legally correct (probably the best kind of correct).

As such it is unlikely that a private charge of fraud could ever stand (especially as the bank paid out its simple interest exactly in line with its detailed terms and conditions and its constitutional documents from 1863).

While it might seem strange to devote over 20 minutes of my day to writing this up when I have no dog in the fight, it is worth highlighting the key facts to save considerable effort by customers who had these accounts over two decades ago and may have otherwise got their hopes up to jump on an ultimately unsuccessful compensation bandwagon.

Gadfium

The post is probably more to do with driving up clicks to the OP's homepage than anything else.
The prominent "Donate now with PayPal" probably earns him a few bucks.
I wonder if the restraining order against the OP that prevents him from "from agitating other persons to take legal proceedings against [TSB]" is still in force?

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/high-court-strikes-out-legal-move-over-takeover-of-tsb-1.1121890

bowlhead99

I must admit to clicking on his embedded YouTube video out of morbid curiosity. I can save you the bother, turned out to be just snips of text from the rest of his website while music played. Once he gets enough clicks, he may be able to get YouTube to pay him some cash for the potential advertisement traffic on their site if he were to sustain the number of clicks.

Spamming as many forums as possible with his catchphrase is good for search engine optimisation where he's allowed to post links on those forums. I was going to hit the "report spam" button but his post doesn't really hurt our forum in its current state - as long as nobody is going to be duped into seeking him out and contributing to his fighting fund to get his assistance on a fraud claim.

Seems unlikely that someone would read the above and try it on, but for the avoidance of doubt he has had zero success with the fraud claim after getting his payoff 24 years ago, so is not really in a position to help you