MSE News: Thousands of Santander mortgage holders could get payouts after blunder

crusaderstyle

Two_steps_forward... wrote: »

Crusaderstyle, we have got them on the run! Imagine, 270,000 potential complaints!

We do indeed Two Steps! :rotfl:

We all know Santander will only drag their heels and do the bare minimum of what they think they can get away with.

When all of this cap margin first came to light and the FSA told Santander they'd need to contact their customers (current and previous) I actually thought they'd try and fob most people off with a few hundred pounds 'goodwill gesture' and hope they'd go away. However, as that could be viewed as Santander accepting any liability they're just outright rejecting people. It really is PPI all over again but n a smaller (but still rather large) scale.

They'll hope that a lot of people won't understand it/ care enough to contact them about it. The ones that do make an official complaint will be rejected and a reasonable %age of those will probably leave it at that point.

Is it going to be a case of whoever shouts the loudest with the final say from the FOS? I think so.

Oh well, I'm up for the battle as I'm sure you all are too. They need to be taught a lesson!

Vector_2

Have been watching developments on this thread with interest. I was an M001 letter but I haven't received a rejection letter yet!

I took out my original mortgage in 2003, this was renewed on a new 2 year fixed rate in 2005 and then for a further 5 years, expiring in November 2010.

During this time we moved house, (April 2007) and Santander set up an another loan in addition to the original one but this was on a 2-year fixed rate. We had 2 parts to the one mortgage and this was all done under the same mortgage account.

Basically when the new deal expired we were forced to go onto the SVR for 18 months until the original deal expired. We were told at the time that unless we paid the penalty charge for the original deal then we had "no choice" but to wait until both had finished to bring things into line.

The SVR we paid for these 18 months was 4.24 and Santander have admitted the highest they could have charged was 3.00.

We did actually stay on this SVR for a further 4-5 months after both deals had ended whilst we sorted out an off-set mortgage with the One Account. Therefore they cannot use the "balance of probability" argument with me...!

Vector_2

Just one more thing. I did have quite a "debate" with Santander when they asked me what I would have done had I been given the opportunity to exit my mortgage without penalty back in 2008 and would I have moved to a different provider?

I refused to give a categoric answer to this question as you could not possibly say what you would have done 5 years ago with a different set of circumstances presented.

crusaderstyle

Vector wrote: »

Have been watching developments on this thread with interest. I was an M001 letter but I haven't received a rejection letter yet!

I took out my original mortgage in 2003, this was renewed on a new 2 year fixed rate in 2005 and then for a further 5 years, expiring in November 2010.

During this time we moved house, (April 2007) and Santander set up an another loan in addition to the original one but this was on a 2-year fixed rate. We had 2 parts to the one mortgage and this was all done under the same mortgage account.

Basically when the new deal expired we were forced to go onto the SVR for 18 months until the original deal expired. We were told at the time that unless we paid the penalty charge for the original deal then we had "no choice" but to wait until both had finished to bring things into line.

The SVR we paid for these 18 months was 4.24 and Santander have admitted the highest they could have charged was 3.00.

This is one of the more interesting cases I've seen on here as it does seem as though you were held hostage on the SVR for a while without being advised of the three month 'get out clause' which I would interpret as being applicable here.

That is just my own thoughts on the matter though!! Stick with it.

TheMightySwordfish

*Nevermind*

almond

but I think we are getting a standard letter back saying we have no claim because we never changed mortgages when we came off fixed rate, again contract has been breached by them

crusaderstyle

Definition:
Breach of contract is a legal term that describes a violation of a contract or agreement in which one party fails to fulfill its promises or by interfering with the ability of another party to fulfill its duties. A contract may be breached in whole or in part.




Most contracts end when both parties have fulfilled their contractual obligations, but it's not uncommon for one party not to completely fulfill his or her part of the contract agreement. Breach of contract is the most common reason contract disputes are brought to a court for resolution. In order for a breach of contract to be upheld by a court it must meet all of these requirements:

• The contract must be valid; that is, it must contain all the essential contract elements so that it can be heard by a court. If all essential elements are not present, the contract is not valid and there is no lawsuit.
• The plaintiff must show that the defendant breached the contract.
• The plaintiff did everything required in the contract.
• The plaintiff must have notified the defendant of the breach. If the notification is in writing, this is better than a verbal notification.

Defenses to breach of contract



A defendant may offer a reason (defense) why the alleged breach is not really a breach of contract. Common defenses against a breach of contract are:

• Fraud, which "knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment." The defendant is saying that the contract isn't valid because the plaintiff failed to disclose something important or made a false statement about a material (important) fact. The defendant must show that the fraud is deliberate.
• Duress, which occurs when one person compels another to sign a contract through physical force or other threats. This too invalidates the contract, since both parties didn't sign of their own free will.
• Undue influence is similar to duress, in that one party has an power advantage of another and uses that advantage to force the other to sign the contract.
• Mistake. A mistake by the defendant can't invalidate a contract and take away a breach of contract case. But if the defendant can prove that both parties made a mistake about the subject matter (a car, let's say), it may be enough to serve as a defense.
• Statute of limitations.Many types of cases have a time limit by which a case must be brought. If the defendant can show that the statute of limitations has expired, the breach of contract case may be thrown out.

Remedies for breach of contract



If one party is found to be in breach of a contract, the plaintiff has several ways to be made whole; called a remedy. The most common remedy is monetary payment. Some other common remedies for a loss resulting from a breach of contract are:

• Damages, including compensatory damages (to compensate for the actual loss) and punitive damages.
• Injunction, to get a court to require the other party to stop an action that is causing damage.
• Recission. Sometimes the plaintiff has been so badly damaged by the breach that the injured party is allowed to rescind (terminate) the contract.

Not sure if I've cut and pasted too much here - apologies if I have.

Thought it would be interesting for us all to look at what defines a breach of contract as Almond had suggested. It makes for an interesting read.

I did mention breaching the contract in my response to Sanatander, but I do wish I'd laid it on a bit thicker!!

TheMightySwordfish

Just received our rejection letter on the grounds that we haven't changed our Mortgage when we could, so aren't affected "On balance of probabilities".

Hummm......

crusaderstyle

crusaderstyle wrote: »

Definition:
Breach of contract is a legal term that describes a violation of a contract or agreement in which one party fails to fulfill its promises or by interfering with the ability of another party to fulfill its duties. A contract may be breached in whole or in part.

Just thinking outside the box, but for any of us that were suffering financial difficulties over the affected period, by not notifying us of the cap margin increase, were they 'interfering with my ability to fulfil my duties ie. keep up with the repayments?

So much needs to be taking into account by Santander.

crusaderstyle

TheMightySwordfish wrote: »

Just received our rejection letter on the grounds that we haven't changed our Mortgage when we could, so aren't affected "On balance of probabilities".

Hummm......

That seems like such a lame argument from them but at least you can now move on to step 2.

Are you going to go back to Santander or move straight onto the FOS?