Ombudsman question

sarah1980

Hoping for some help here. I went to the Ombudsman after Santander applied charges upon charges and eventually a default on my account. I was out of work at the time. Santander did not send me a letter to warn of default (well they did, but it was sent AFTER the default had already been applied). On receipt of this I made an arrangement to pay what little I could, not realising that the account had already been placed into default.

Anyway, the Ombudsman made Santander repay some of the charges (not actually repaid to me, just put towards reducing the amount I owe them) but said the default would not be removed and the rest of the charges they deemed fair.

They want me to sign a letter agreeing this is the case. Of course I DON'T agree, and I have one opportunity to appeal. My question is this: if I appeal and it is thrown out, am I therefore obliged to sign their letter and does this then amount to me agreeing that the charges are fair and admitting liability? And does it also mean that the default will remain on my file for a further 6 years from now?

The original default was in 2010 and the full amount was made up of charges upon charges at a time when I was out of work.

Any advice would be appreciated.

dunstonh

Anyway, the Ombudsman made Santander repay some of the charges (not actually repaid to me, just put towards reducing the amount I owe them) but said the default would not be removed and the rest of the charges they deemed fair.

Since the banks wont the court case, the FOS wont force the banks to refund any charges unless they are due to incorrect application. However, they will encourage the banks to look at cases fairly if they feel they havent been. Especially in cases of hardship.

They want me to sign a letter agreeing this is the case. Of course I DON'T agree, and I have one opportunity to appeal. My question is this: if I appeal and it is thrown out, am I therefore obliged to sign their letter and does this then amount to me agreeing that the charges are fair and admitting liability? And does it also mean that the default will remain on my file for a further 6 years from now?

You need to read the outcome letter again. You are not going to win a case on unfair bank charges. You may win on other issues but not that. If you reject the offer you do not need to sign anything. You have no obligation to accept the offer. The default would remain and the debt would not be reduced.

sarah1980

Thanks for your response, if I reject the offer does this mean the default will still be removed in 2016? And by the ombudsman ruling in their favour, does that make the debt enforceable?

Aquamania

sarah1980 wrote: »

Hoping for some help here. I went to the Ombudsman after Santander applied charges upon charges and eventually a default on my account. I was out of work at the time. Santander did not send me a letter to warn of default (well they did, but it was sent AFTER the default had already been applied). On receipt of this I made an arrangement to pay what little I could, not realising that the account had already been placed into default.

Anyway, the Ombudsman made Santander repay some of the charges (not actually repaid to me, just put towards reducing the amount I owe them) but said the default would not be removed and the rest of the charges they deemed fair.

They want me to sign a letter agreeing this is the case. Of course I DON'T agree, and I have one opportunity to appeal. My question is this: if I appeal and it is thrown out, am I therefore obliged to sign their letter and does this then amount to me agreeing that the charges are fair and admitting liability? And does it also mean that the default will remain on my file for a further 6 years from now?

The original default was in 2010 and the full amount was made up of charges upon charges at a time when I was out of work.

Any advice would be appreciated.

You are not obliged to accept the offer as it stands.

It could be that the offer is withdrawn or reduced (or improved or probably remain the same) if the matter goes to appeal. But having said that withdrawal or reduction is extremely rare)

You are not obliged to accept the decision after appeal either.

If you do not accept any settlement offer, then the bank will not be asked by the FOS to comply with the resolution.
(If you do accept the offer, the bank must comply with the FOS decision)

The default will stay on your credit report for six years from the default date (unless the FOS decide upon appeal that it should be removed, and you accept such resolution)

Aquamania

sarah1980 wrote: »

Thanks for your response, if I reject the offer does this mean the default will still be removed in 2016? And by the ombudsman ruling in their favour, does that make the debt enforceable?

The debt is almost certainly enforcible.
(although, if it does go to court, the court may look favourably on the fact the FOS suggested a reduction of the amount owed may be in order. Then again the court will not look favourably on the fact you had not accepted that proposed resolution. Note any court will only reduce the debt based on legal findings, whereas the FOS has additional possibilities to offer a resolution)

The fact you have been repaying the debt is also an indication that you accept you legally owe the bank the money.

sarah1980

Aquamania wrote: »

The fact you have been repaying the debt is also an indication that you accept you legally owe the bank the money.

. How upsetting, I was only doing it to prevent further action . And I actually specified this in my letter

Aquamania

sarah1980 wrote: »

. How upsetting, I was only doing it to prevent further action . And I actually specified this in my letter

If you specified before you started to pay any money you were paying the money 'under protest' that would have been ok.

But claiming after the event that the money was paid 'under protest' is of no value.

sarah1980

Aquamania wrote: »

If you specified before you started to pay any money you were paying the money 'under protest' that would have been ok.

. Thanks, this is exactly what I did.

Aquamania

sarah1980 wrote: »

. Thanks, this is exactly what I did.

On what basis were you protesting against the charges applied?

It sounds like the FOS don't agree, at least in part ... but they are not the final decision. You have the option of asking a law court to decide if you are certain you have been wronged.

I would urge you to seek independent legal advice on your position if you are not prepared to accept whatever proposed solution the FOS offer.

Your OP bangs on about "charges upon charges at a time when I was out of work." but that is no basis to protest against the validity of the charges applied, sorry.