Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Former MSE Helen
    • By Former MSE Helen 19th Apr 13, 2:40 PM
    • 2,324Posts
    • 971Thanks
    Former MSE Helen
    MSE News: Thousands of Santander mortgage holders could get payouts after blunder
    • #1
    • 19th Apr 13, 2:40 PM
    MSE News: Thousands of Santander mortgage holders could get payouts after blunder 19th Apr 13 at 2:40 PM
    "Santander failed to clearly notify 270,000 Abbey customers it was hiking the cap on their mortgage SVR in December 2008..."

    Read the full story:

    Thousands of Santander mortgage holders could get payouts after blunder



    Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.

Page 31
    • frazell
    • By frazell 23rd Sep 16, 5:57 PM
    • 156 Posts
    • 89 Thanks
    frazell
    Hi Fleetingmind,

    Yes that is Santanders argument. It doesn't take away from the fact that they didn't inform you so you didn't have the chance to take avoiding action if you wanted to.

    On 15th December 2008 they increased the margin without your knowledge and then in Feb 2009 when your mortgage went SVR you PAID MORE because of it. Just because Santander say that you could have moved mortgage in Feb 2009 is not really the point is it? The ship had sailed.

    If you remember in 2008/2009 the mortgage market was utterly decimated. If you look at the rates that you could have got in Nov/Dec 2008 compared to what you could have in Feb 2009 you will see that they were higher and significantly more difficult to attain in 2009 than they were in late 2008.

    As I said, if someone said to you "we're going to charge you more for your mortgage once it goes to the SVR... BUT how about a 3 month timeframe to move provider without penalty?"

    Would you have said "well thanks very much, I'll nip off and canvass the mortgage market and see whats what", or would you say "nahhhh, I'll just stay where I am thanks"?

    Santander increased the margin without tell anyone to railroad people into paying a higher SVR at the end of their mortgage term. It was very covert and as my late granddad would say "not cricket".
    Last edited by frazell; 23-09-2016 at 6:08 PM.
    • mac24
    • By mac24 24th Sep 16, 2:10 PM
    • 62 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    mac24
    Hi Fleetingmind,

    Yes that is Santanders argument. It doesn't take away from the fact that they didn't inform you so you didn't have the chance to take avoiding action if you wanted to.

    On 15th December 2008 they increased the margin without your knowledge and then in Feb 2009 when your mortgage went SVR you PAID MORE because of it. Just because Santander say that you could have moved mortgage in Feb 2009 is not really the point is it? The ship had sailed.

    If you remember in 2008/2009 the mortgage market was utterly decimated. If you look at the rates that you could have got in Nov/Dec 2008 compared to what you could have in Feb 2009 you will see that they were higher and significantly more difficult to attain in 2009 than they were in late 2008.

    As I said, if someone said to you "we're going to charge you more for your mortgage once it goes to the SVR... BUT how about a 3 month timeframe to move provider without penalty?"

    Would you have said "well thanks very much, I'll nip off and canvass the mortgage market and see whats what", or would you say "nahhhh, I'll just stay where I am thanks"?

    Santander increased the margin without tell anyone to railroad people into paying a higher SVR at the end of their mortgage term. It was very covert and as my late granddad would say "not cricket".
    Originally posted by frazell
    The problem is getting an official ruling on the three month rule.

    Nobody has had a definitive answer.

    Santanders line is that you were no way affected which I have argued.
    The big nail in the coffin is that the ombudsman wholeheartedly agrees with them.
    • peterod1
    • By peterod1 24th Sep 16, 10:39 PM
    • 74 Posts
    • 71 Thanks
    peterod1
    If your mortgage cost you more than originally agreed excluding movements in the interest base rate then I think it is fair to say you are affected, if affected then it must of been applied, if applied then you were free to exit without any early repayment charges.
    • frazell
    • By frazell 26th Sep 16, 9:35 AM
    • 156 Posts
    • 89 Thanks
    frazell
    The problem is getting an official ruling on the three month rule.

    Nobody has had a definitive answer.

    Santanders line is that you were no way affected which I have argued.
    The big nail in the coffin is that the ombudsman wholeheartedly agrees with them.
    Originally posted by mac24
    It needs to be tested in court. I think any judge worth their salt would apply the terms and conditions and agree that we could have all moved mortgage, if we so desired. I'm pretty sure they'd take a dim view of Santanders concealment of the cap margin.
    • OceanSound
    • By OceanSound 8th Oct 16, 10:09 AM
    • 27 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    OceanSound
    heads-up on team manager
    You’ve recently been in correspondence with one of our team managers, Nichol Chacon. Both Nichol and her team member Kim have brought me up to date with all the reasons you’re unhappy with the investigation and outcome of your complaint against Santander.
    Originally posted by DMKCAK
    Careful when dealing with Nichol Chacon. Tends to make it up as she goes along. I found her confusing at best, incoherent at worst.

    My complaint about Santander putting a dormancy block on savings account and the service they provided in relation to having it released has gone from bad to worse. The adjudicator first gave the impression that she was dealing with the dormancy block placement issue, then just before passing the case to an ombudsman said the ombudsman won't be looking in to whether the dormancy block was placed correctly.

    I complained to the adjudicators Manager, Ms Chacon.

    Here's an extract from her reply:

    I want to explain that I won’t be determining what the ombudsman will be reviewing and addressing in regards to your case. If the appropriateness of the block was not part of this complaint, they won’t be looking into it. You’ve already told me that you feel it was. So this means that the disagreement you have in regards to what your complaint was about, is something I’ll look into for you. If I find that it was part of your complaint, I’ll do what I can to out things right for you. But if I determine it wasn’t part of your complaint I’ll explain the reasons why.
    After finishing her investigation, she told me that only Santander's handling of the dormancy release will be considered at the Ombudsman stage. As for the dormancy block placement:

    You’ve said you still expect the ombudsman to investigate this matter, but this isn’t something we’ll be arranging. ....
    Conscientious/selective screening of details. deliberate inaccuracies to make errors by adjudicators seem less grave:

    ...I can see why [the adjudicator's] response to that particular email may have caused you confusion. After speaking to [the adjudicator] about it, I’ve concluded that this was an error she made in her email to you on 8 September 2016. I’m happy to see that [the adjudicator] rectified this right away by and clarified what she had investigated as well as what the ombudsman would be looking at - which did not involve whether or not the block was placed correctly. I’m sorry for any confusion this may have caused and have provided [the adjudicator] feedback about the importance of making sure we get things right.
    The adjudicator told me long before 08 September 2016 that the ombudsman will investigate the dormancy block placement issue. I told Ms Chacon about this in my complaint and produced evidence. She chose to ignore it.

    Incoherent:

    The ombudsman will complete their own independent review of the merits of your case, before they determine an outcome they think is both fair and reasonable to both parties. So although I’ve found no evidence that [the adjudicator] has shown any bias towards Santander, this doesn’t make a difference to the ombudsman’s review. This is because their review is completely separate. The ombudsman will look at all of the evidence from both sides completely afresh in order to form their own independent conclusions in the matter. Those may or may not be different from what the adjudicator has found, ....
    The ombudsman service has told me a number of times that Ombudsman by and large tend to agree with the adjudicators view. What Ms Chacon say's here simply doesn't add-up.

    Often misinterprets:

    When I told her bias issues needs to be handled promptly and that I need to know if the senior manager and executive advisor was in the office, she started rabbiting on about how the ombudsman's decision is separate to service related issues. I was actually telling her promptness was necessary because, if there is bias, the adjudicator would need to be retrained (Rather than continuing to handle present/future cases). She misunderstood this, and started defending the ombudsman's decision making process. Here's that example:

    Dear Mr [my name]

    Apologies for the misunderstanding. Currently, [executive advisor] is scheduled to be in the office today, and [senior manger] is scheduled to be in both today and tomorrow.
    Guarded, robotic, back-tracking, and Fire-fighting speech -

    Here's an extract from her latest email:

    But I need to explain that we cannot guarantee you’ll have a full reply from [Senior Manager] before then. We also cannot promise you that her findings will be different from mine. But if [senior manager] finds our service could’ve been better or that we did something wrong, she’ll explain why and resolve things in a way she thinks is fair under the circumstances. However, she may also agree with what I’ve said. But [senior manager] will need time to look into matters - including if we’ve been biased - before she’s able to draw a conclusion about any of the concerns you’ve raised.
    I also wanted to make sure that it’s clear what the ombudsman’s review involves. The ombudsman will complete their own independent review of the merits of your case, before they determine an outcome they think is both fair and reasonable to both parties. So although I’ve found no evidence that [adjudicator] has shown any bias towards Santander, this doesn’t make a difference to the ombudsman’s review. This is because their review is completely separate.
    Really?, so if the senior manager happen to find that the adjudicator was biased, will the Ombudsman start gathering evidence from scratch?, I doubt it.
    Last edited by OceanSound; 10-10-2016 at 7:00 AM. Reason: added detail for clarity
    • DMKCAK
    • By DMKCAK 14th Oct 16, 10:32 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    DMKCAK
    All,
    I had posted earlier about seeking legal opinion on this long running matter with Santander. The "non-advising" of the raise in the cap-rate margin by Santander draws some comparison with the class action bought by the borrowers against the West Bromwich Albion for changes made to interest rates on Buy to Let mortgages.
    The case went to the court of appeal and the borrowers were succesfull on all counts. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE FOS DECLINED ALL THE COMPLAINTS IN THE FIRST INSTANCE for all the West Bromwich borrowers.

    The Barrister I have been speaking to see's some merit in a class action against Santander to establish breach of contract on Santander's behalf but has noted the following.

    1/- Santander has settled a number of cases as a gesture of goodwill.
    2/- FOS has not given a decision in any case on a breach of contract (no evidence of an actual decision as such could be found on the FOS website for published decisions).
    3/- Quantifying loss is a variable matter in every individual case.
    4/- Establishing claimants individual claims would be a time consuming and expensive business.

    There were many more points made and quite a few hours of discussion around various issues but the upshot was COST and the difficulty in establishing the losses individually. However the overiding concern was that the FOS had not actually made a decision on liability against Santander in any case - meaning that any legal action would need to start from scratch for claimants who HAD NOT accepted Santander's gesture of goodwill.

    Sadly it was this Barrister's opinion that Santander has been very clever in the way that they had played this (AND CONTINUE TO PLAY THIS) and further he was also concerned that the FOS had allowed this to go the way that they have because of THE FAR REACHING IMPLICATIONS FOR THE INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE.

    In short anyone who has accepted Santander's goodwill offer of compensation has to a degree (although not absolutely) compromised their position going forward. Anyone who has not accepted the gesture of goodwill is on stronger ground but would need to be prepared for a lengthy and costly battle.

    Pragmatic if not a bit disappointing.

    From a personal perspective we have put a complaint against the FOS handling of our case before the FOS Independent Assessor. This is ongoing.

    Our issues with Santander remain unresolved as the offer/deal that they put to us, that FOS decided was fair and reasonable, well it turns out Santander have been unable to fulfil parts of it and 3 months down the line it drags on and is back with the Chief Executive's (Nathan Bostock) office for resolution as the individual handling it at Santander (Tracey Valentine) was so inept that her actions could be considered untruthful, misleading and deceitful.

    But we keep plugging on as this appears to be all any of us can do.Perhaps talking to our MP's may help. It is if nothing else another avenue

    DMKCAK
    Last edited by DMKCAK; 14-10-2016 at 10:34 AM. Reason: clarity
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,082Posts Today

7,135Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's not fair or accurate to assign all leave voters (nor remainers) one voice. The vote may have been binary but t? https://t.co/QMqKrfY1jv

  • That's cos the UK voted for Brexit. The choice now unless something radical happens is what type. (Plus twitter o? https://t.co/SLmh2jL4bU

  • Todays twitter poll: The lib dem leader says more people now want soft brexit (ie still in single market etc) than hard - what do you want?

  • Follow Martin