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

trsisko

Finally got my rejection today, it's looks like Santander have won the right to rip us off. God bless the banks..

MCSAVE

cokey123 wrote: »

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?

Had my Ombudsman result now and it is the same as the above. I've already complained to Santander re the CCA and they deny it, so what next? When did the FOS stop dealing in the law?

DJTASK

Cokey123

You managed to get a much longer response than I did, but basically it says the same thing!

From what I read between the lines, the FOS are basically say that whilst there is a law and it could well be broken, because in the FOS view we weren't "hurt" they think it would be unfair to penalise the banks. i.e. Dear Mr Bank Manager, you can drive whilst using a mobile phone and we wont do anything about it as long as you dont kill anyone.......

I need to calc how much interest I would be refunded to see if its within the small claims court limit. Any suggestions of a webiste to back calc the total interest based on my APR, how much I pay each month and my current loan balance?

DJTASK wrote: »

I've had to take two days to calm down from my latest interaction with FOS.

Received an email last week updating me on my challenge to their conclusions before Christmas. I had added about the statements issue and how this breaches the CC regulation. In response I got:

"Unless you are able to show that it has materially affected your position, I cannot find that it changes the outcome. If you can show that you would have acted different then I would be happy to consider this further."

What???? Since when has this been a condition of a breach of the CC regulations. Do they not read the media and the recent Northern Rock Together Loans breach? My response was - too bloody right I would have acted differently if I had been aware of the breach, I would not have paid santander any interest..................

Unbelievable.

I'm guessing we pay taxes to fund this outfit?

Potatofrisky

Received my rejection letter from the ombudsman yesterday, so the last and only hope is the small claims court. Is anyone willing to put together a generic argument/case template in writing so that we can submit this via the Money claim online small claims court website? I am willing to be the "guinea pig" to test this process out.

Regards

Ellapooch

I'm interested in the claims angle too if folks want to join up?

Flyboy757

Hi all, I too (as expected) received my response from the FOS today. It's only taken 9 months or so.
It is an exact replica of the others that have posted bar a few specific points of my case laid out on page 1. The rest is a common rejection, word for word, like everyone else's.

My ajudicator did not write this! She has not dealt with my case just gone to a file that says standard reject and printed it out! Thought they dealt with everyone on a case by case basis? Haha.

God, it took them 9 months NOT to look into this!!!

And they then have the balls to tell me I have until 27. Of this month to reply.

I want to take it further. I will happily put into the pot for this to go to court.
Can anyone help in this regard? Or to help with a reply to the FOS who seem just as corrupt as Santander.

Look forward to any replies and lets start this moving back in our direction.

abbapinkdisco

i for one would be willing to go to court to fight this. my interest/payments are crippling me. I only earn £250 pcm and my loan is now £157 per month

cahootsmoot

Morning all - signed up here today having found this thread.

Did you all receive notification of the interest hikes from Cahoot via email? I did not, whether it went to my spam folder or not, and subsequently Santander have been unable to provide evidence of this correspondence to me.

All they say is they can confirm what was sent out to customers (ie the message) but have no proof/receipt of email.

Surely this is grossly negligent on their part, and while they will refer to their original T&C's saying they can increase interest % where they feel it's necessary, they are not communicating fairly and indiscriminately to their customers.

On the Cahoot legal disclaimer they set out their business principles highlighting their subscription to The Lending Code which states they will:

- "give you clear information about their products
and services – how they work, their terms and
conditions and the interest rates and charges that
apply to them;
• tell you about changes to interest rates,
charges or terms and conditions;
• lend money responsibly"

It's pretty apparent that Santander are in breach of this code on a number of counts...

I had a long chat with a representative from Santander last week (Michelle Cook I think was her name) who told me that no two cases were the same and my circumstances were different to others who had been given refunds/goodwill gestures/call them what you will.

I strongly refuted this, saying that we had all been treated unfairly and will be taking this up with the FOS (without a great deal of optimism). I will also be taking legal advice on this matter and will report back on any findings.

Keep up the fight!

cahootsmoot

Also, thanks for posting the FOS response VanGoghsearhere.

On the fourth page of their reply to you the FOS allude to some customers being paid goodwill gestures "because Cahoot had not provided sufficient details about the reasons for the interest rate charges";

What are they referring to here? The fact that the Flexi-loan was an altogether unprofitable product? Or the fact that they didn't actually alert customers of the % hike at all?

If it's the former then we are all due an explanation - In fact does anyone have a copy of a Cahoot email detailing the interest rate increases and the reasoning behind the hike?

Thanks

cokey123

Hi

Cahootsmoot - basically my adjudicator inferred that Santander offered no information on previously upheld cases and were happy to settle until everyone started asking. Then they looked into it legally. Hence why some got paid - not because they had better cases - but because Santander didn't care at that point to argue (guess admin costs outweighed payouts at that stage).

I would also like to pursue the small claims court. I do think we need to argue the breach of contract in regards to the statements and type of contract it is because the Ombudsman didn't offer a conclusion to that. Then again that could be a red herring to distract us from the real issue. I am useless at writing letters/claims so would not be the best person for that though....there are a few on here who are particular eloquent and drive home the real points though, so perhaps someone could?