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

hairyfishman

Hi DD,

I wrote to the OFT at:-

Enquiries and Reporting Centre
Office of Fair Trading
Fleetbank House
2-6 Salisbury Square
London
EC4Y 8JX

I made sure to clarify that I didn't expect them to assist in my specific complaint, but was more interested in the general "high-level" aspect - I wanted to see if Santander should/could do what they have done; could it be classed as an unfair term in the contract; could it be seen as predatory lending etc.; I don't want them, or other banks, to be able to abuse these clauses in future.

I enclosed a copy of the Terms and Conditions for clarity too.

The more of us write to them, the higher profile these complaints will get - maybe the FOS will take some notice.

I think the only person I have left to write to is my MP!

Regards to all.

Denza

Morning,

I fired off a general 'unfair terms' query to the Credit Fitness team via the following email address:

enquiries@oft.gsi.gov.uk

This was the recommended course of action after discussion with an OFT representative on the phone.

As per hairyfishman I made it clear that I was looking for clarification on the T&Cs themselves as opposed to their actual application as regards my complaint.

I did however re-cycle some material I have sent in to the FOS to show how Cahoot are (mis)using the various clauses to their advantage.

Simple example; Cahoot claim that rate rises up to January 2007 were due to money market (base rate) movement. No problem. However there were subsequent base rate movements all the way down to 0.5% which elicited no APR amendments whatsoever (irrespective of other APR amendments on the upside which have been ascribed solely to other clauses).

So the 'money market' clause in question appears to be active only when APR increases are warranted but then deactived when APR decreases are warranted. That would seem to be a tad "unfair" to those on the other side of the credit agreement and certainly not documented.

This is the simplest clause to tear down... don't even get me started on the competitiveness/prudence malarkey!

Good luck to all.

pheonixrising21

Denza wrote: »

Morning,

I fired off a general 'unfair terms' query to the Credit Fitness team via the following email address:

[EMAIL="enquiries@oft.gsi.gov.uk"]enquiries@oft.gsi.gov.uk[/EMAIL]

This was the recommended course of action after discussion with an OFT representative on the phone.

As per hairyfishman I made it clear that I was looking for clarification on the T&Cs themselves as opposed to their actual application as regards my complaint.

I did however re-cycle some material I have sent in to the FOS to show how Cahoot are (mis)using the various clauses to their advantage.

Simple example; Cahoot claim that rate rises up to January 2007 were due to money market (base rate) movement. No problem. However there were subsequent base rate movements all the way down to 0.5% which elicited no APR amendments whatsoever (irrespective of other APR amendments on the upside which have been ascribed solely to other clauses).

So the 'money market' clause in question appears to be active only when APR increases are warranted but then deactived when APR decreases are warranted. That would seem to be a tad "unfair" to those on the other side of the credit agreement and certainly not documented.

This is the simplest clause to tear down... don't even get me started on the competitiveness/prudence malarkey!

Good luck to all.

I've had similar discussions with Santander themselves about the clauses they claim to be able to raise thier rates under.

They gave me the line that the BoE base rate went up between 2005 and 2008 and so my APR went up. I then pointed out that in 2009 it went down to 0.5% and no change in APR. They came back and said that BoE base rate is only a small part of their cost base. Other costs include IT, staff, admin, marketing and others, including bad debt costs. They also trotted out the prudency arguement again, but without any clarification as to what it meant.

I responded stating that their IT costs should have fallen as they removed the onlin banking facility for the loan. I also pointed out that IT, staff and admin are all inter-dependant and usually an increased cost in one of these is offset by cost-savings in the others, i.e spend more on IT to reduce staff and admin costs, with the aim for overall costs of the three to reduce. Then there was marketing. i explained that I am an existing customer, marketing is not needed and therefore the cost of lewis Hamilton's salary should not be paid for by an increase in my APR.

With regards to the prudency aspect, I asked if the rise was because I posed a higher risk to them and so they decided to charge me more. They said I was in the lowest risk category. I went back and asked that if I was the lowest risk, why should I pay for bad debt costs? I understand some people in all risk categories default, but the lowest risk category should have minimal defaulters, surely?

Needless to say that they have refused to respond to any of the points I raised, and now refuse to answer any more communications from me, a point I will be making to the FOS.

I'll also be making a complaint to the OFT and FSA regarding their decision to base interest rate rises on what their competitors charge! Surely that's against some sort of anti-competition regulation?

Denza

pheonixrising21 wrote: »

therefore the cost of lewis Hamilton's salary should not be paid for by an increase in my APR.

Superb! Is it any coincidence that his first season in F1 was 2007?

pheonixrising21 wrote: »

I'll also be making a complaint to the OFT and FSA regarding their decision to base interest rate rises on what their competitors charge! Surely that's against some sort of anti-competition regulation

No I think you'll find that is perfectly above board banking practice, just like the fixing of LIBOR.

aviador

The BBC have published a very interesting article about tackling unfair treatment by banks - bbc.co.uk/news/business-19511542

I don't know if the small claims court option they talk about would be applicable here though, as most of these accounts go back more than three years?

cara_lou

I took out a cahoot flexi loan in 2003, for I think £3000 or £4000, unfortunately I can't remember the details and the bank won't send me an account history (I've asked them five times)! I didn't know I had PPI until 2005/2006 when looking at a statement I noticed the extra £25 a month that was taken from me. They stopped it at this point at my request. I also think I'll have suffered the interest rate hikes as the loan ran until I paid it off (with a consolidation loan) in 2010...I know you shouldn't pay debt with debt but it was a nightmare...I'm sure I'm due something back but what to do if they won't give me a statement? I have no details!

hairyfishman

Cara_lou,

If you need information from Santander, try sending them an SAR request (see above on this thread, or on other forums for - just google it, as I'm not allowed to add links here) - it will cost you £10.

It will take some time (they are allowed up to 40 days or so, and they will probably be late), but you should get the information you need to a) pursue them for the PPI payments, and b) possibly some of the excess interest...

pheonixrising21

No I think you'll find that is perfectly above board banking practice, just like the fixing of LIBOR.

Of course! How silly of me!

Denza

My Unfair Terms complaints to the FSA and OFT have been formally acknowledged however in the case of the former - as alluded to in previous posts - this has simply been referred to the OFT.

My gut feeling is that the OFT will not act without an influx of similar complaints so I would urge complainants to also raise their concerns with them.

Consumer Credit Act 1974
Complaint Against: Santander UK plc trading as Cahoot
Licence No: 0265029

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

The Office of Fair Trading Enquiries and Reporting Centre
Fleetbank House
2-6 Salisbury Square
LONDON
EC4Y 8JX

Email : [EMAIL="enquiries@oft.gsi.gov.uk"]enquiries@oft.gsi.gov.uk[/EMAIL]

Of course I am assuming that many of you share my concerns over the product Terms & Conditions, specifically the Variation of Interest Rates & Charges clauses.

However if you think these are spot on then please ignore the above and good luck to you!

MHO_2

I've not heard anything back from FOS, it's been with them sometime, so it looks like they aren't giving anyone a blanket response regarding this.