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

Weety_2

I received the generic response from FOS yesterday. Where do we go from here?

pheonixrising21

I've logged another complaint with them, based on the statements not being correct for either a running account or fixed-sum. I've asked them to state which account type it is in their response, as well as providing a refund of the interest charged during the relevant period. The relevant period being either since paper-based statements started being sent (for running account) or the removal of flexible drawdown facility (for fixed-sum), which is around the same time anyway.

I've also asked for copies of my cahoot online statements from them so that I can review these against regulations too.

We'll see how it goes...

pheonixrising21

Furthermore, in my personal situation, for a period of about 8 months Santander didn't send me any statements at all, so I'm pretty certain that there is a breach there...

kenny_straw

Furthermore, in my personal situation, for a period of about 8 months Santander didn't send me any statements at all, so I'm pretty certain that there is a breach there...

...Me too....in fact I only started receiving paper statements once I made the original complaint last Jan!

trsisko

It's been over 1 year and I haven’t yet received anything! I'm still waiting for the standard rejection letter. The FOS needs to be reformed. This is highly damaging and considering that they are cutting and pasting blanket responses its even worse!

tobyt_2

I have identified an important point relating to Cahoot/Santander rate increases. This is a point which affects us all, so I would like some feed back from the forum.
Santander stated in their rejection letter that they reviewed the product in 2010 and I quote.

"Regrettably, at the time it was felt necessary to increase the rates on the flexible loan to ensure the product with the flexibility it offered to customers could continue to be offered."

However, having stated that the rise was to ensure the continuity of the product, it was soon removed. Having dis-continued the product, Santander nevertheless continued to charge for it, by leaving the increase in place, so that we were all paying for a product which no longer existed.

Question: Santander has many, many T & C's published. Can anyone point out a single rule which could even be construed as giving them any reason to charge for a product which they do not provide and is indeed non- existent? If anyone can answer that question, your view/views would be welcome.

I have that very question to the Adjudicator who was unable to answer it, and has asked the Ombudsman to give a ruling on it.

My view is very clear, Santander has no right to ask me to pay for a product which does not exist.

Cell

tobyt wrote: »

I have identified an important point relating to Cahoot/Santander rate increases. This is a point which affects us all, so I would like some feed back from the forum.
Santander stated in their rejection letter that they reviewed the product in 2010 and I quote.

"Regrettably, at the time it was felt necessary to increase the rates on the flexible loan to ensure the product with the flexibility it offered to customers could continue to be offered."

However, having stated that the rise was to ensure the continuity of the product, it was soon removed. Having dis-continued the product, Santander nevertheless continued to charge for it, by leaving the increase in place, so that we were all paying for a product which no longer existed.

Question: Santander has many, many T & C's published. Can anyone point out a single rule which could even be construed as giving them any reason to charge for a product which they do not provide and is indeed non- existent? If anyone can answer that question, your view/views would be welcome.

I have that very question to the Adjudicator who was unable to answer it, and has asked the Ombudsman to give a ruling on it.

My view is very clear, Santander has no right to ask me to pay for a product which does not exist.

I did actually include that point in my complaint (seven months and waiting).

I think it's reasonable for them to charge for the risk of lending, given that there was an outstanding balance.

What isn't reasonable is that as you say they increased it partly to be 'competitive' and to reflect the flexibility of the product, but then when there was no need to be competitive and there was no flexibility the rate was not reduced to strip out this element of the headline rate.

They can't have it both ways. It's the very definition of 'unfair', and I can't see how any logical argument can be raised to defeat it. It's a truism.

Denza

tobyt wrote: »

Santander stated in their rejection letter that they reviewed the product in 2010 and I quote.

"Regrettably, at the time it was felt necessary to increase the rates on the flexible loan to ensure the product with the flexibility it offered to customers could continue to be offered."

However, having stated that the rise was to ensure the continuity of the product, it was soon removed. Having dis-continued the product, Santander nevertheless continued to charge for it, by leaving the increase in place, so that we were all paying for a product which no longer existed.

Question: Santander has many, many T & C's published. Can anyone point out a single rule which could even be construed as giving them any reason to charge for a product which they do not provide and is indeed non- existent? If anyone can answer that question, your view/views would be welcome.

I have that very question to the Adjudicator who was unable to answer it, and has asked the Ombudsman to give a ruling on it.

My view is very clear, Santander has no right to ask me to pay for a product which does not exist.

I have raised and re-iterated all of your points with the FOS and they didn't even deign to discuss it in my assessement or the subsequent disinclination to amend their decision. So at least they are true to their word with respect to being consistant.

As you have pointed out there is an obvious contradiction in increasing APR to maintain product features and then withdrawing those same product features without a decrease in APR.

Santander themselves have stated the correlation between flexibility and higher APR in my final response letter claiming that some people migrated to cheaper products at the time of the initial outrageous APR increases as they were prepared to lose the flexibility of the product.

The is also an obvious contradiction in increasing APR as a means to sustain the Flexible Loan book profitability whilst simultaneously offering (advertising) alternate non-Flexible Loan products in the same message.

However from the perspective of the FOS; which is that the T&Cs are completely fair and clear and also that there is no need to substantiate any of the material submitted by Santander because it is all absolutely 100% accurate and above board and anything that might just possibly be suspect - if you were insane enough to doubt their motives for even one second - can be described as "simple a poor choice of wording"; these contradictions are not worth commenting on, i.e. commentary on them has not been provided for the adjudicators in the templated blanket response.

With respect to the product changes they have achieved this by stealth by simply removing the references to said features from the T&Cs; for which a handy and I dare say completely fair clause exists. Though I believe that they have neglected to remove Secure Zone and Secure Message references - or add a non-Flexible Loan customer caveat - from them.

Any faith in the FOS seems misplaced. Not even in terms of getting a decision in our favour but in terms of getting an honest and diligent review of the cases in the first place.

Now; who has got a claim of less than £5K and is up for representing us at the small claims court?

pheonixrising21

Cell wrote: »

I did actually include that point in my complaint (seven months and waiting).

I think it's reasonable for them to charge for the risk of lending, given that there was an outstanding balance.

What isn't reasonable is that as you say they increased it partly to be 'competitive' and to reflect the flexibility of the product, but then when there was no need to be competitive and there was no flexibility the rate was not reduced to strip out this element of the headline rate.

They can't have it both ways. It's the very definition of 'unfair', and I can't see how any logical argument can be raised to defeat it. It's a truism.

I agree totally, but when I pointed this out to them they came back with a whole list of costs which had increased, IT (thats a laugh as they removed online banking), staff and operations (again, thats a laugh as if they increased IT spend i.e. more automation, then ops/staff costs should fall otherwise the IT spend is pointless - thats not prudent is it?), advertising (why am I paying for Lewis Hamilton to advertise for new customers? The cost to new customers should cover the cost of advertising for them!) and some others.

They did state that the loan does remain flexible as I can pay it off (or overpay) at any point without penalty. This is also a bit of a laugh as most loans these days allow overpayments without penalty, so its easy to pay back early if you want, therefore making this loan only a tiny bit more flexible than a fixed-sum loan IMO.

Anyway, I've not yet gone to the FOS, but have lodged a second complaint with Santander about the statements. Both are worth about the same value to me, and if both were upheld, I would not get the full value of both as they overlap (one claiming two thirds of the interest back over x period of months and one claiming all the interest back over y period of months).

Is it true that banks get charged by the FOS for each complaint they receive, regardless of whether or not its upheld? I've heard its in the region of £500-600? Now two complaints would be in the region of £1200, which is about what one of my claims is worth, so they may be willing to settle...? Oh, there's a flying pig!:A

Potatofrisky

Denza wrote: »

I have raised and re-iterated all of your points with the FOS and they didn't even deign to discuss it in my assessement or the subsequent disinclination to amend their decision. So at least they are true to their word with respect to being consistant.

As you have pointed out there is an obvious contradiction in increasing APR to maintain product features and then withdrawing those same product features without a decrease in APR.

Santander themselves have stated the correlation between flexibility and higher APR in my final response letter claiming that some people migrated to cheaper products at the time of the initial outrageous APR increases as they were prepared to lose the flexibility of the product.

The is also an obvious contradiction in increasing APR as a means to sustain the Flexible Loan book profitability whilst simultaneously offering (advertising) alternate non-Flexible Loan products in the same message.

However from the perspective of the FOS; which is that the T&Cs are completely fair and clear and also that there is no need to substantiate any of the material submitted by Santander because it is all absolutely 100% accurate and above board and anything that might just possibly be suspect - if you were insane enough to doubt their motives for even one second - can be described as "simple a poor choice of wording"; these contradictions are not worth commenting on, i.e. commentary on them has not been provided for the adjudicators in the templated blanket response.

With respect to the product changes they have achieved this by stealth by simply removing the references to said features from the T&Cs; for which a handy and I dare say completely fair clause exists. Though I believe that they have neglected to remove Secure Zone and Secure Message references - or add a non-Flexible Loan customer caveat - from them.

Any faith in the FOS seems misplaced. Not even in terms of getting a decision in our favour but in terms of getting an honest and diligent review of the cases in the first place.

Now; who has got a claim of less than £5K and is up for representing us at the small claims court?

Hi Denza

[FONT=&quot]I have requested that my case be transferred to the ombudsman but I am not holding my breath because it’s very rare that they go against the adjudicator’s decision.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I am owed a lot more than £5K but I will be placing a claim for £4999 through the small claims court. I am not sure if it makes sense just to cancel the ombudsman taking a look at the case and just file my claim with the small claims court because I am not prepared to wait a further 8 to 12 months for his/her discussion.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Taking it to the small claims court will be for me the final attempt to get something back from Santander (apart from watchdog of course!) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Is anyone willing to help me word my claim particulars against Santander or at least give me some pointers. I do have some idea but any support would be much appreciated. If I am successful, this will then hopefully open the floodgates for others to place a claim, unless of course they settle out of court. I will of course keep you all updated. [/FONT]