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

Ellapooch

I've had all the rejections too - complaint now with the ombudsman for final decision. I also complained recently to Santander that the statement do not meet CCA requirements, got a response within a week not upholding and claiming that the statements do meet the CCA requirement for a rolling credit agreement. I'm forwarding this to the FOS . Anyone else had feedback on this?

quaybab

As generic information, please remember the FOS are not at required to consider every point and every document in a financial complaint. It is up to the FOS to determine what is at the root of a case and what is fair - the law and terms and conditions are for it to decide. This way mistakes can be hidden. They also lie saying cases are treated on an individual basis when they have plenty of published decision on its website.

The FOS adjudicator or ombudsman can disclose any case documents to you at any time during the case when it wishes. As with all case communication, this will be done within 2 weeks of a request. If the FOS send it recorded delivery against your wishes, you should complain and ask for it by secure message.

You can ask for a second opinion but it is up to an adjudicator if one is produced. An ombudsman rarely overturns an adjudicators provisional view - it only ever does if new evidence comes to light which essentially turns round the case completely.
An ombudsman’s final decision will be written by the original adjudicator with the ombudsmans name stamped on the outcome.

I suppose this is where claims management companies become useful. They know all of this already.

P-G_2

Vicky495,
All you have to do is tell the adjudicator you want your case considered by an ombudsman. If you have further evidence, send it, but its not essential. You dont have to restate your case unless you want to add anything. The ombudsman will be more senior and experienced, but the chances that the decision will be changed is low in my opinion. Its possibly worth a try, but it will take time. The ombudsman will issue a DECISION. If you accept this it becomes binding on both sides and that is an end to the case. If you dont accept it you can still persue Cahoot directly or take them to court.
Hope this helps

Dr_Cuckoo3

I have no personal interest in the Cahoot loans issue , but do have an interest in the FOS

There is a Freedom of Information request in respect to Virgin One accounts where the complaints appear to have been grouped (- allocated to one particular ombudsman) and a complaint to the Information Commissioner has elicited some useful information


http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2012/fs_50458649.ashx

page 3

"In view of this the FOS had, within the
cost limit, identified all of the final decisions issued by this ombudsman
for complaints concerning RBS and ‘house mortgages’ between 1
January 2008 and the date of the request. The FOS explained that it had
then examined each of these final decisions and established 18 related
to the subject matter of the complainant’s requests, and of these 18
complaints, 16 involved a change in the outcome in the consumer’s
favour, i.e. they were ‘upheld’."

So 16 out of 18 complaints dismissed by an adjudicator were upheld when referred to an Ombudsman (the same Ombusman for all cases - Clare Mortimer)

So how many people accepted the adjudicator's "********" without referring the matter for review by an ombudsman when 16 out of 18 complaints were upheld when previously dismissed ?

trsisko

I'm a bit worried that I have yet to receive a response. Even a reject as of yet!

vicky495

VanGoghsEarhere wrote: »

Received knockback the other day. I have until the 5th February to appeal the decision. I will do so but chances of Ombudsman overturning adjudicators decision, going by the experiences of posters here, is about 1%. The gist of what adjudicator said was you signed the agreement which meant the T&Cs and this allows Santander to do this, that and the other. Absolutely nothing about whether said T&Cs are actually fair (and transparent) to the consumer / debtor.


Dear VanGoghsEarhere,

I have to appeal until the 15th Feb. Would you be so kind as to give me an idea of what you replied to your adjudicator? Is it okay to e-mail my adjudicator or do I have to post my reply? Thanks for your help.

vicky495

Is it possible to get the template too in order to appeal to Ombudsman? Many thanks

DJTASK

vicky495 wrote: »

Is it possible to get the template too in order to appeal to Ombudsman? Many thanks

Not seen any template as such here.

However, all you do is reply (by email and I sent a back up letter) to your adjudicator and tell them to refer it. You can highlight anything you disagree with in their conclusion. I've highlighted mine in post 1626 on page 82

VanGoghsEarhere

@vicky495

Vicky

My response is specific to my complaint and the information I submitted to the FOS. It also takes into account the response I received from FOS (see #1697-1700). I also asked the FOS to provide the information that Santander submitted to them in respect of my complaint. This was basically the original CCA, dates of email notifications, and a statement of payments, interest charges and interest rate changes. The gist of my appeal is given below:

It is my understanding that the Financial Ombudsman Service has the authority to resolve complaints based on the following:

• The law of the land

Of course the primary source is the law, if companies actions are breaking the law then it’s quite clear cut.

• Regulators rules and guidance

The Financial Services Authority’s (or other relevant regulator) rules also play a key part, so if the FSA has indicated how it wants companies to behave and a company breaks that, it can be deemed unfair.

• Good Industry Practice

In most cases it means that the FOS will look at any trade body standards (such as the Banking Code and Lending Code), but it can also look at what is seen as common good practice, and if a particular company goes against that, it can deem its actions unfair.

I submit that you have based your decision solely on the terms and conditions ((T&Cs) and numerous changes to same)) but have failed to address ‘regulators rules and guidance’ and ‘good industry practice’. The T&Cs cited in your reply are:


“12.2 We may change our interest rates or our day today changes at any time for one or more of the following reasons:
(a) To maintain the competitiveness of our business as a whole, taking into account actual or expected changes in market conditions;
(b) To reflect actual or expected changes in money market interest rates;
(c) To ensure that our business is run prudently;
(d) To reflect a change in general banking practice;
(e) To reflect any regulatory requirements or guidance, or any change in the law or a decision or recommendation by a court or Ombudsman;
(f) To enable us to harmonise our banking or charging arrangements; or,
(g) To reflect changes in technology or in the direct costs we are required to pay others, or to take account of inflation.

12.3 We may also change our interest rates and/or charges for any other reason that is valid.”



I contest that these T&Cs are ambiguous and unsurprisingly, wholly biased in favour of Santander with little regard for the customer who is obliged to agree with same to avail of credit facilities. I cite the doctrine Contra Proferentem and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 and believe that these should be considered in relation to my complaint.



You do not address the issue that upon transfer of the loan from Cahoot to Santander, which was essentially an inter-bank transfer*, Santander did not provide a new credit agreement to customers which reflected the changes in the product. I believe that customers were within their rights to expect a new credit agreement which categorically stated their new credit limit, the APR and to negotiate fixed repayment options in light of these changes.
* As Santander acquired Abbey National in 2004 of which Cahoot was a subsidiary it is difficult for me to determine whether this is perceived legally as an intra / inter bank transfer.


Bank of England Base Rate v Cahoot / Santander Interest Rate history


I see that the reasons’ given for the interest rate rises differ depending on the financial climate. At first the increases reflect the changes in the base rate and the money markets which seems ‘reasonable’ as illustrated in the table above. However, in December 2007 the base rate begins to fall and C/S changes tack stating the reason, ‘to ensure that the business is run prudently’, to justify a dramatic increase in the interest rate. Through 2008 the base rate continues to decrease yet in August 2008 I am hit with another increase in my interest rate. This pattern continues until the base rate falls to 0.50% in March 2009. Therefore a differential of 19.50% has existed for almost 4 years with absolutely no ‘like for like’ change in my interest rate.

You state “Cahoot has said that, by 2006, the flexible loan product (as a whole) was no longer profitable – I am satisfied, on balance, that this was so”. You go on to say “I am not in a position to audit the profitability of Santander and its constituent business areas...” I find it hard to believe that you can be satisfied with Santander’s statement without having the facts and figures to hand in order to make your own informed decision.

I contend that the rate increases are grossly unfair and unjustified (as no hard evidence has been produced by C/S to support their business case for the interest rate rises) despite their ‘rights’ under the T&Cs. In theory they could increase my interest rate to 30%, 40%, 50%.... under the T&Cs and I would have to accept this.

My balance on 1st February 2010 was £4,XXX. In the period from then to 2nd October 2012 I have paid C/S £3XXX yet the balance in October 2012 was £3XXX, a mere reduction in the capital of £9XX. If I were to state to C/S that it wasn’t “financially prudent” for me to continue to pay them these sums I’m sure they would not delay in taking legal action against me.


In your reply you state that C/S “was not obliged to continue to lend to you. Having considered your application it said that it was not prepared to do so. Its decision to decline the application was a matter of its own commercial judgement. I do not believe that I should interfere with that judgement.” I believe that you have misunderstood my grievance. In July 2010, I contacted C/S to explain that I was experiencing financial hardship and there was a real risk that I would be unable to meet my monthly payments in the hope that they would be sympathetic and understanding. To this end I asked them to reduce the interest rate. They refused point blank and the only alternative they offered me was to ask for a new loan for the outstanding balance (+£1,000 at their insistence). I didn’t want to take this route but given my position felt that this was the only alternative open to me. Therefore, I believe that C/S also contravened the Lending Code, and treated me unfairly.


In conclusion, I am appealing your decision as I believe that you have considered the evidence and my complaint from a legal standpoint (T&Cs) only. The legality of ‘creating’ a new loan without the consent of the customer via a new credit agreement is questionable. Furthermore, I propose that the interest rate increases imposed by C/S are unfair and unjustified.

cokey123

Hi all

My husband and I just had out Ombudsman decisions through. Basically as we expected - the same as others, rejecting complaint about interest rises because of blah blah blah.

However I did bring into the equation the complaint about the statement errors and the ambiguity regarding the nature of the contract (running or fixed).

The FOS have basically said that they cannot agree to a refund because of that but they also suggest we can take that issue to a court of law.

Mrs X has said that her statements do not show certain details, including the original amount borrowed, in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. She says that any interest Cahoot has charged since is unenforceable and should be refunded.
The FOS provides an informal dispute resolution service that is an alternative to the courts. I am therefore required under section 228 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to determine compaints by reference to what I consider to be fair and reasonable, in all circumstances of a complaint. Our rules require that, in making that determination, amongst other things must have regard to any relevant law, relevant codes and good industry practice. This means, for example, that decisions I reach might differ from those a court would reach.
I do not believe it would be fair and reasonable to require Cahoot to refund interest because it sent out statements that did not show, for example, the original amount borrowed. If Mrs X wants to argue its a breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 then she is entitled to ask a court to deal with this dispute. I do not, in any event, have the power to declare the loan unenforceable.

So I guess I need not go forward again to Santander with that particular complaint. I think if we choose to proceed now, it must be through the courts.

Any ideas on this?