Santander rip off with 20% loan started at 7 % with cahoot transferred

hullight

halifax71 wrote: »

unless there can be little doubt in a reasonable consumer's mind as to what sort of variation, broadly speaking, such wording allows, and in what circumstances.

I think a reasonable customer would accept that interest rates can go up and down for lots of different reasons (risk anyone?;)).

ILW

halifax71 wrote: »

Once again this site brings out some rather disturbing comments.

You signed, it's variable, the banks need to treble their profit - etc

Absolute disgrace - you should be ashamed. :mad:

To the original poster. You need to look at your terms and conditions and then investigate: -

- The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

One of the many extracts of the OFT guidance states: -

A term which merely says that variations will only be 'reasonable' or will only be made 'reasonably', is unlikely to be any fairer than one which contains no such qualification, unless there can be little doubt in a reasonable consumer's mind as to what sort of variation, broadly speaking, such wording allows, and in what circumstances. Where the criteria of reasonableness are vague, or clearly meant to include the best commercial interests of the business, there will be scope for the supplier to change the bargain unfairly to the detriment of consumers, simply on the basis that he needs to protect his profit margins.

Disgusted once again - Martin would be ashamed to be associated with such drivel.

The OP of this thread was offered a fixed rate but chose the variable because it was a little cheaper at the time. He has now found that he made a bad decision and it is all someone elses fault. Bit like blaming the bookie if you back a loser.

Apples2

halifax71 wrote: »

To the original poster. You need to look at your terms and conditions and then investigate: -

- The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

One of the many extracts of the OFT guidance states: -

A term which merely says that {snipped}

This has been done to death a million times on here. I posted some links relating to the same thing earlier in this thread.... Can you post a link about anyone who has had ANY success in challenging this problem??

halifax71 wrote: »

Disgusted once again - Martin would be ashamed to be associated with such drivel.

I'll post Martins advice about this for you!!

WARNING: Cahoot Flexible Loans... Rates are being hiked to exorbitant levels
Not long ago it was a darling of the loan market, very cheap and flexible. Unlike normal loans, the risk of taking a flexible loan is the rate can change at the lender's whim. Now many Cahoot customers are having rates hiked by huge amounts, up to 19.9% ( it was once around 6%). This is a horrid rise, and rumours are it's a deliberate attempt to get customers to switch it to its parent, the Abbey's standard loan. Well avoid that, it's not particularly cheap, instead read the Cheapest Loans Article to find the cheapest, then ditch and switch. Discuss this

Martin has given exactly the same advice we have all been giving in this thread

Now run along and tell Martin he is talking drivel.

Rednoseranter

Haven't posted on here for a while, but I just had to post a reply to this.

Whilst I have sympathy with the OP, I agree with every other (bar one) posted in reply. I fail to see what is disturbing about any response the OP has been provided and referring to UTCCR is unlikely to be of any real beneficial use unlike the general gist of the other responses which has been "Yes they can increase the rates to this level - its a variable rate loan, if you don't like it move to another provider of fixed rates."

For the sake of completeness the FSA don't regulate unsecured personal loans - thats the Office of Fair Trading which monitors compliance with the CCA, you may have more luck with them rather than the FSA.

halifax71

I think the OP has gone to the FOS which is the correct route although you are right about the OFT but they won't deal with individual queries.

Not going to labour this as we clearly have differing opinions. I have no idea what the OP's Terms & Conditions say however if they are not transparent / in plain English, then he may have a case.

I'm tackling the FOS & the OFT along with many others re the same company and the case has been ongoing for 2 years now. These things take time - not going there on this thread, but I honestly believe the FOS cannot rule against us as the business in question has breached the UTCCR.

My point is not to dismiss arguments on the basis that "Variable" means that it is OK to raise interest rates from 7% to 20%. Because if that wasn't made clear then there is an argument that the contract is unfair.

I think posters need to wind their neck in slightly as I firmly believe Banks profiteering is the next scandal - and it will be significantly bigger than PPI.

_Andy_

'Banks profiteering is the next scandal'? Why should they not make profit?

opinions4u

halifax71 wrote: »

I think the OP has gone to the FOS which is the correct route although you are right about the OFT but they won't deal with individual queries.

I'm not aware of the FOS getting involved in commercial pricing decisions.

Not going to labour this as we clearly have differing opinions. I have no idea what the OP's Terms & Conditions say however if they are not transparent / in plain English, then he may have a case.

"Variable Rate" will not only have been in the terms and conditions, but plastered all over the web site and on the credit agreement.

I think posters need to wind their neck in slightly as I firmly believe Banks profiteering is the next scandal - and it will be significantly bigger than PPI.

I'm sure as bank profits recover to pre-credit crunch levels newspapers will have headlines like "Bank doubles profits and pays staff extra money scandal". But I think it's been pretty clear that profitable banks are a good thing.

After all, when banks were making bigger profits, people tended to have lower rates on their variable rate loan agreements.

Think about that last sentence. It tells you so much about why rates on unsecured products have gone up.

halifax71

_Andy_ wrote: »

'Banks profiteering is the next scandal'? Why should they not make profit?

I said profiteering

_Andy_

halifax71 wrote: »

I said profiteering

Indeed you did - fair point (I had skim read). I fail to see why varying a variable rate is unethical though?