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

DaisyBell

Oh, that is disappointing! I got a letter the other day too, but thought it referred to a more recent dispute I have with Santander. I've just reread it and realise its about the flexi-loan, not that it mentions the loan. My complaint went to the FSO in April too, still waiting.

Devonian_Devorah

jace65 wrote: »

I sem to have started mine on a similar date to you............emailed Saturday 14th July, reply from Santander dated Monday 16th July!!

I have just replied to there letter asking for some further clarification, specifically: Flexibility, the meaning of "Prudently" and why I'm penalised i.e. being charged more so that they can "continue to offer" this product (which they aren't anymore!!)

I have also talked about the Bank of England Base Rate, which is something they mention in their T&C's.

I have ended my letter by stating that I feel that this is an unfair relationship, as defined by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and I expect the loan and interest rate to be adjusted accordingly!!

Will see how long they take to reply, and then it's off to the FOS....

J

Thanks Jace, it would seem that we have also sent identic letters too!

Sunny57

Cell wrote: »

Another one here who has received a 'sorry for the delay' letter despite being rejected more than two months ago.

Me too! Sorry for the delay letter received on Saturday. Similar time scale too - I received my 'knock back' in April. Nothing really surprises me any more where this is concerned. It's good to know I'm not on my own!

Peanuckle

I too got a letter this morning from them saying sorry it's taking so long even though I sent the details, along with their final result letter, to the FOS months ago

BUT

I haven't got around to getting DH's complaint into the FOS yet, his original complaint was sent the day after mine and his final letter from them arrived at the same time as mine. So it seems that only those who have complained to the FOS got this latest letter? Must get him to sign his form to post to the FOS this week anyway but it's interesting to see that only those who have contacted the FOS got the letter?

oracleman

Just had it confirmed again that the FOS is reviewing if these interest rate increases were fair or not. This clearly can go one of two ways, but given the evidence of poor practive by Santy I would be surprised if FOS finds in favour of Santy.

I keep comming back to why Santy made lots of early settlements as gestures of good will - why would they do this unless they knew they were wrong ?

So hoping for a food outcome from the FOS as then I think it will make the case clear for everyone. We all get a refund or we dont . Fingers crossed.

Denza

A ruling in favour of Santander is not going to look good in light of previous rulings in favour of the claimants. However I'm not ruling anything out at this stage!

The fact is that the clauses they are relying on are opaque and unqualified, this means that borrowers have in reality had no opportunity to to acquaint themselves with their true meaning. Additionally the interpretation of said clauses are at the sole discretion of the lender.

All of the above are noted examples of unfair terms in consumer contracts as referenced directly by the Legislators (Government), the Financial Services Authority and the Office of Fair Trading.

Example : "[FONT=&quot]c. to ensure that our business is run prudently"

[/FONT]What are the measureable criteria applied to "prudence" in this context and what are those measureables direct relationship with the Flexible Loan product APRs in the scope of the "business" as a whole?

In this example, based on my experience, the measureables dictated that my APR would need to rise from approx 8% to approx 20% in a short space of time and then freeze thereafter.

I am looking forward to seeing that explained in detail by the good people at Santander.

Good luck to all.

pheonixrising21

Denza wrote: »

A ruling in favour of Santander is not going to look good in light of previous rulings in favour of the claimants. However I'm not ruling anything out at this stage!

The fact is that the clauses they are relying on are opaque and unqualified, this means that borrowers have in reality had no opportunity to to acquaint themselves with their true meaning. Additionally the interpretation of said clauses are at the sole discretion of the lender.

All of the above are noted examples of unfair terms in consumer contracts as referenced directly by the Legislators (Government), the Financial Services Authority and the Office of Fair Trading.

Example : "[FONT=&quot]c. to ensure that our business is run prudently"[/FONT]

What are the measureable criteria applied to "prudence" in this context and what are those measureables direct relationship with the Flexible Loan product APRs in the scope of the "business" as a whole?

In this example, based on my experience, the measureables dictated that my APR would need to rise from approx 8% to approx 20% in a short space of time and then freeze thereafter.

I am looking forward to seeing that explained in detail by the good people at Santander.

Good luck to all.

Don't forget the fantasically clear and detailed "any reason that is valid" clause!

And also the fact they claim (in my case) that some of the rises are due to the increase in the BoE base rate between 2006 and 2008. No mention of the massive fall in BoE base rate in 2009.

I believe that "ensuring our business is run prudently" involves them checking up on our credit files to see what risk we pose at any particular time. If they feel we pose a higher risk than we used to (either because our cirumstances have changed or becuase they redefined "risk" (or both)), then they jack up the rate. Of course, this goes completely against their initial statement that we were all given the opportunity to move our loan to another (cheaper) product. If we represented a higher risk, how would we get a cheaper product?

Then there was the statement which basically said we can charge x% because other banks do. I asked them if that could be considered cartel behaviour. They said I misunderstood them and that they menat that the loan remained competitive as other banks were not cheaper.

Pretty much the only clause in their list that they haven't used with me yet is the one regardiing technology and thats because with them taking the online access away they know they haven't got a leg to stand on with that one!

Duncton

I sent my complaint to the FOS on 17th July and received two letters from them today both dated the 20th.
One acknowledges the correspndence, but saying dealing with "very high number of enquiries" and should hear from them in around eight weeks.
Second letter, says "We have now asked Santander to send us the information they have about your complaint which we need so we can investigate further".
Good luck to them getting any information!
Also want me to contact them if Santander contact me with an offer....

kenny_straw

Folks - got a call from the FOS requesting a bit more information. Can anyone help me with a few dates?
1. Does anyone know a date when the Cahoot loans were transferred over to Santander?
2. When the online facility was withdrawn and how they made everyone aware of this?

I can only remember being informed of rate rises \ withdrawl of the online facility by means of a message when I logged into the cahoot website? I dont remember any letters being sent - this the same with others?

Due to the high number of people with the same complaint this ones going to take a bit longer I have been told :S

Cell

I think that the answer is late winter/early spring 2010.

I don't think I got a letter but do recall the online notice.