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

DJTASK

Got to love the FOS

Just had my update letter following referral to the ombudsman for final decision.

"blah blah blah We should be able to give you the ombudsman's decision within six months - but we will let you know if we think it will take longer. Blah blah blah etc"

Waste of a stamp.

michaelingramco

I wouldn't waste your time waiting for a FOS decision, as when it comes you may be somewhat dissapponted.

Indeed, Alistair Darling called one of their decisions extremely charitable in favour of the bank. I rest my case.

David Millington, Michael Ingram.. these are some of the ones who have issued particular odd decisions, with secret communications at high levels with the banks.

AccountantGV

Just replied to the FOS requesting (without much hope) a review. Given the expected response I expect the legal avenue will be the only way forward. Any ideas what the FOS actually do if they have no power.

byebyedebt

Don't give up people. Every time Santander fob you off complain again. Don't let them get away with it. There will come a point where they will be so clogged trying to deal with this that they will refund. They knew they were wrong in the beginning and that is why they refunded the money.

Potatofrisky

Time for action!!!! Through the courts. I have just rang santander in order to pay an additional lump sum off the total and they told me that they do not accept this anymore and I would have to increase my direct debit, It states on my santander statement " If you make only the minimum payment each month, it will take longer and cost you more to clear you balance" I am now being charged 23.24%! They also said , if I want to complain there is a special team handling the cahoot flexible loan complaints!, I know, they are useless and so are the FSA. I will go through the small claims court, claiming back around £5k of overpaid interest. What have I got to lose, £150! compared to £12k of overpaid interest.

I will keep you updated but I am not holding my breath! Why hasn't Martin Lewis and his gang covered this story??

byebyedebt

So that the little bit of this loan that apparently keeps it flexible is the ability to make overpayments. But Santander are not allowing you to overpay! Log a complaint on this one.

Have you tried paying by BACS. I used to pay mine by BACS payments.

Little team? Where are they based, or is it just Michelle Cook who comes up often on this forum.

Denza

byebyedebt wrote: »

So that the little bit of this loan that apparently keeps it flexible is the ability to make overpayments. But Santander are not allowing you to overpay! Log a complaint on this one.

Have you tried paying by BACS. I used to pay mine by BACS payments.

Little team? Where are they based, or is it just Michelle Cook who comes up often on this forum.

Cooky and Huffster are the stars of the MK Sants defense this season. To be fair to them though they are merely following the tactics of the "Manager" however loathsome those tactics may appear to those on the other side.

I really cannot believe that Santander would be so stupid as to withdraw the one remaining flexible feature from the product which remains in the Terms & Conditions.

Unless buoyed by the complicity at the FOS they will at some point simply re-issue the T&Cs with all references to that feature removed for "a reason that is valid".

That would leave the flexibility of repaying the entire balance of your loan off at any time; without penalty as well... until they amend the T&Cs to add a hefty penalty.

To "maintain competitiveness" of the business (with Wonga.com) they may also be interested in raising the APR to 1000% for existing customers and I think it would also be "prudent" to amend the T&Cs to introduce mandatory delivery of all customers first born into their Internship Program.

Who would not be proud to see their first born child tutored in financial acumen by the good people at Santander?

Potatofrisky

Hi

I have tried to pay via BACS using the account number and the sort code as found on top of the statements, but that was rejected. So, there goes. The last flexible part of the loan, the ability to pay off when and whatever amount is gone. The only way is to increase the direct debits, which I have. Well it could be worse, apparently the Ombudsman said in his letter to me " So they could in theory request the whole balance immediately. The changes were made for a reason allowed by the loan terms" I will seek compensation via the small claims court but I am not hopeful (been here many time with other banks).

I have now set my goals of paying the bloody balance off - £4600, originally borrowed £7k back in 2001 (paid so far £19440! and still owe £4600!) I was stupid not to take proper notice of the terms and conditions!

AGAIN I ASK THE QUESTION - Why hasn't Martin Lewis et al taken note of this and supported us with our fight?

InsertWittyName

Potatofrisky wrote: »

Hi

I have tried to pay via BACS using the account number and the sort code as found on top of the statements, but that was rejected. So, there goes. The last flexible part of the loan, the ability to pay off when and whatever amount is gone

Set the payment up as a standing order - worked for me.

pheonixrising21

I make repayments on an almost daily basis by FPS. Every time I log in to my current account online, I FPS over to Santander the few odd pence to round my current account down to the nearest £.

I make on average 15 overpayments a month this way. Hopefully, it will cost them more the process them than I actually send to them each time!! I also have my DD for the minimum and make a larger overpayment at the end of each month by FPS.

I also have a complaint in with Santander regarding the statements. I've given them the current legal definition (from government legislation) of a running account credit agreement, and asked them for the one they are using. They also claim they are using some requirements from 1983 for the info they have to put on their statements, not the ones from 2007 (despite some of the info on their statements being word for word from the 2007 requirements... very strange. I've asked for an explanation on this too