Santander are now refunding interest payments on Cahoot flexible loan's

oracleman

On the basis that banks like insurance companies never payout unless they have to. There must be some judgement somewhere by FOS/FSA that forced Santy to payout in the few cases they did. I can see no reason other than this. Gesture of good will is just a banking term for "we got it wrong" but don't admit liability. If Santy were so sure of the T&C's and they complied with these they they would have refused ALL payouts from the start, nevermind recalulating some of them. Unfortunately for us no one has been able to find out from Santy (even reading between the lines) what the exact case was.

So I think we still have some hope that FOS will sort it out even if it is a long road.

Denza

All the FOS ruling as posted on this thread, including that of the originator's, have ruled in favour of the claimant as far as I am aware.

The FOS are also obliged to be consistant with their rulings which I have in writing directly from an adjudicator.

I remain catiously optimistic that they will be able to gain a satisfactory resolution for all claimants even if it will take months to achieve.

No problem for me though Santy old chum, I've got all the time in the World.

Good luck to all.

newcook

Cell wrote: »

That's not a knockback e-mail, and to be honest I don't see how you could think that it was?

Knockback or cant be arsed letter/email – they all tend to boil down to the same thing! The cant be arsed one I have is only delaying the knockback one I will no doubt receive in a few weeks time so thought I would get it moving a bit quicker and getting the FOS to give them a kick.

oracleman

Denza wrote: »

No problem for me though Santy old chum, I've got all the time in the World.

Good luck to all.

Yep, quite happy to sit back and wait for FOS. The good thing is it costs Santy and extra £600 per claim as well !!

willsboy

Denza wrote: »

Cahoot are a going concern and a division of Santander.

There is no question that Santander are liable for all historic Cahoot product issues should those issues resolve in favour of the claimant.

In other news, on request, they sent me a letter (well basically a print-out) of the emails purportedly sent around the time of the loan migration to all Cahoot customers including the notice of variation.

Here are the highlights from their letter in their own words:

1> Notice of removal of Withdrawals sent 12/01/2010
2> Notice of Variation sent 12/01/2012 (Denza : *)
3> Loan migration notice sent 20/02/2012 (Denza : *)

* yes, those are the actual dates as recorded on my, in their own words; 'bespoke communication'.

With respect to 3> they have also failed to actually provide the email thereafter, just that line. Unless the implication is that they sent me a completely blank email with no subject line... which I suppose should not be discounted.

In the case of 1> the email includes this link :



Hi

I'm new here and just found this thread. I've had one of these accounts since 2002.

I'm kicking myself for not latching on to this last year.

I've just sent off my complaint email, using the template from earlier in the thread. Many thanks to all for the information provided here.

Could I ask Denza for some clarification about 2> and 3>?

Are you saying that you did not receive one or either of these?

I'm interested in finding out the wording of these documents, as I don't recollect them being mentioned before.

Thanks

oracleman

willsboy wrote: »

Denza wrote: »

In other news, on request, they sent me a letter (well basically a print-out) of the emails purportedly sent around the time of the loan migration to all Cahoot customers including the notice of variation.

Here are the highlights from their letter in their own words:

1> Notice of removal of Withdrawals sent 12/01/2010
2> Notice of Variation sent 12/01/2012 (Denza : *)
3> Loan migration notice sent 20/02/2012 (Denza : *)

Interesting that Denza managed to get this info from Santy. In my SAR I specifically asked for a copy of all emails sent so I could see when they claimed to have increased rates.. what did i get.. a copy of my orginal agrement and a print out of all payments/interest charged and thats all

Cell

Guess what...no letter.

Damned Royal Mail:D

emmapurple

Cell, you can borrow one of mine if you want lol hopefully you will get better news but if not it will only be the same letter anyway!!

Denza

willsboy wrote: »

1> Notice of removal of Withdrawals sent 12/01/2010
2> Notice of Variation sent 12/01/2012 (Denza : *)
3> Loan migration notice sent 20/02/2012 (Denza : *)

Could I ask Denza for some clarification about 2> and 3>?

Are you saying that you did not receive one or either of these?
Thanks

I was furnished with the 2> details which are as per this link:

http://www.cahoot.com/terms/pdf/flexibleloannoticeofvariation.pdf

I was not however furnished with anything at all pertaining to 3>.

Denza

oracleman wrote: »

Interesting that Denza managed to get this info from Santy. In my SAR I specifically asked for a copy of all emails sent so I could see when they claimed to have increased rates.. what did i get.. a copy of my orginal agrement and a print out of all payments/interest charged and thats all

I got that detail from a simple call to their Customer Service on 0845 602 2713 and it was sent through (in duplicate no less) within a few days.

Notwithstanding the fact that it was incomplete and/or flawed a pretty impressive result.

However I doubt that they have any archives of the interest rate hike emails as these are personalised for each borrower, i.e. not every one was on the same rate initially.

If they have got these emails and they are then presented to the FOS with reference to your claim you will, I am sure, be raising a complaint with the ICO regarding the fact they did not produce them with respect to your SAR.

Having spoken to the ICO recently I know that they will take a very dim view of this and Santander's best course of action in this event would be to claim that the data was omitted from your SAR due to incompetence.

To be fair this would represent a rock solid defence on their part .