CO-OP Bank Letter Not Acting in accordance with Credit Act (compensation?)

molerat

It may be that the failure, error or omission makes the agreement unenforceable in a court of law but it will not stop your credit file being screwed for the next 6 years if you fail to pay.

picky123

loopdaloop wrote: »

Dear All,

Received a letter through the post from Joanne Mayer Head of Banking Operations stating:

--

AS you may be aware, we send you periodic statements at least every 12 months to keep you updated on activity relating to your loan account. This is in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (which will not be referred to as the act).

Since we produced your last statement we have noted that some of the wording that is required in accordance iwth the ACt was omitted in error.


Thanks.

Stirling Dave,

Before you all get excited about 0% interest, or unenforceability, do you not think that the OP's letter, as quoted above suggests that the annual statement was incorrectly worded, not the actual loan doument.?

If it is the statement, it will have very little bearing on the loan, or any compensation which people feel may be due.

magpiecottage

loopdaloop wrote: »

The bank has broken the law.
I really feel we should be compensated.

The detriment to myself I can't actually say.
But just because I am unaware of the intricacies of finance does not mean that a wrong has not been committed. The organisation admits a wrong has been committed and is 'treating this with the highest priority'.

If we follow your logic then if you have ever broken the speed limit I must be entitled to compensation from you because I am a road user.

The reality is that to be entitled to compensation, you need to prove three things. The first one is that the bank has done something wrong. That is easy - they have admitted it.

The second is that you have suffered a loss. You might be able to do that. Perhaps you were flooded the other week.

The third one is the difficult one, though. You have to prove that, but for the bank's error, the loss would not have occurred. How will you do that?

I don't buy the idea that by receiving compensation it puts the prices up for everyone else.

Clearly you have failed to grasp the fundamental concept of economics that if you do not make a profit you do not stay in business.

These are banks and are not set out for the public interest or the public good so sod them : )

And you only ever do unpaid work then? I WANT those I do business with to make a profit because I WANT them to do the job I need them to do.

Of course if they get things wrong I want them put right but I don't want them put out of business.

If you do not want them to make a profit go back to bartering. You will do without those nasty banks as well as telephone companies, ISPs, electricity companies, computer manufacturers and so on.

Banks are run by the greedy.

And apparently for the greedy.

dunstonh

Banks are run by the greedy.

And reflect consumer society which is also greedy. This thread is a very good example of that. You have incurred no loss but you want compensation for an error that you were not even aware of and wouldnt have been had it not been pointed out to you.

Co-op will take legal advice on the issue and decide the appropriate action. They will almost certainly liaise with the FCA as largescale issues are usually brought to their attention. As a collective, they will decide if any compensation or redress is due.

loopdaloop

StirlingDave wrote: »

I’ve had this letter as well and was hoping to see some informed opinions on it. Sadly, this thread doesn’t seem to be the place for that.

The situation, potentially, is that the Co-op have provided loans but are not legally entitled to receive interest given the agreements that were made. If this does turn out to be the case, I would imagine the interest rate would be dropped to 0% for the lifetime of the loan, all our payments would do towards the amount loaned and we would either complete the loans much earlier or reduce our monthly payments massively. I suspect if people have paid the original loan amount they would be entitled to receive interest on any money paid back to them as well.

This isn’t about trying to gain compensation for a typing error which wasn’t read, this is potentially about a company trying to receive payment for something they are not entitled to due to their error. If I am eligible to unexpectedly drop my interest to 0% that’s nothing something I overly deserve, but it’s something I’m entitled to in the same way that if a supermarket accidentally undercharges me for a product I’m not obliged to pay the full amount regardless.

It’s a shame there is no expected dates for when the investigation will be finished. It might well be that nothing is wrong so there is no point in expecting nice news. But it would be useful to know if this is something which will be resolved in 3 months, or still ongoing in 3 years time.

Thank you very much, this was the sort of discussion I was hoping to see when I started this thread.

With regard to:

magpiecottage wrote: »

Clearly you have failed to grasp the fundamental concept of economics that if you do not make a profit you do not stay in business.

I have ignored what you have written about speed limits as it makes no sense.

What we do know is

1) There is a problem
2) They have broken the law.
3) the law they have broke was put in place to protect consumers
4) people that received this letter, are the consumers of the coop.
5) Ergo... consumers of the co-op have been treated in a manner that has not been legal.

One might argue that a 'fundamental concept' of a business within the financial sector is that it can not act not in accordance with the relevant laws for its sector. Co-op are aware of this, hence making this a 'high priority'.

As I previously mentioned, just because I am currently unaware of the detriment to me that this has caused, does not mean that a detriment has NOT occurred. A law has been broken that was put in place to prevent a detriment to consumers. Therefore a detriment HAS occurred. These are the 'fundamentals' if you like.

I would like to reinforce the above paragraph again.
Just because I am not currently aware of what the detriment is (As I don't have an understanding of finance, hence my attendance on this website) does not mean that a detriment has not occurred

Furthermore for the benefit of Magpie, the 'fundamental concept' of moneysavingexpert is that you can find out information about a range of issues related directly to money. There are lots of lovely factsheets, if you have a browse along the top and for the things that aren't mentioned, these forums are open for discussion. If you're worried about poor banks, utility companies, estate agents or other leaches upon society receiving less money than they would have initially then you are on the wrong website. May I refer you to moneygrabbingexpert.com.

With regard to the spurious aspersions cast upon the 'morality' of wanting to investigate this, I would like to point out that if companies acted in accordance with policies, procedures, terms and conditions as well as law then they would not be at risk of claims being made against them due to their breaches. The reason legislation has been passed is to prevent companies being dodgy. On this occasion it may be 'error' or 'omission', but that is always the first excuse companies use when they have been caught taken advantage of the public.

magpiecottage

loopdaloop wrote: »

I have ignored what you have written about speed limits as it makes no sense.

Six people thanked me for that post so I beg to differ

[/quote]
What we do know is

1) There is a problem
2) They have broken the law.
3) the law they have broke was put in place to protect consumers
4) people that received this letter, are the consumers of the coop.
5) Ergo... consumers of the co-op have been treated in a manner that has not been legal.[/quote]

What we do know is

1) There is a problem.
2) You have broken the law (don't tell me have never exceeded a speed limit or had a momentary lapse of concentration, even on a bicycle).
3) The law you broke was put in place to protect other road users.
4) Anybody else on the roads were entitled to that protection.
5) Ergo... all fellow road users have been treated by loopdaloop in a manner that has not been legal.

One might argue that a 'fundamental concept' of a business within the financial sector is that it can not act not in accordance with the relevant laws for its sector. Co-op are aware of this, hence making this a 'high priority'.

One might argue that a "fundamental concept" of loopdaloop going on the roads is that he cannot act in accordance with the relevant laws. loopdaloop is aware of this, and that as a result any other road user could have lost their life (not simply money) but is giving it "zero priority".

As I previously mentioned, just because I am currently unaware of the detriment to me that this has caused, does not mean that a detriment has NOT occurred. A law has been broken that was put in place to prevent a detriment to consumers. Therefore a detriment HAS occurred. These are the 'fundamentals' if you like.

Just because I am unaware of the detriment to me that has been caused, does not mean that a detriment had NOT occurred. A law has been broken that was put in place to prevent detriment to other road users. Therefore a detriment HAS occurred. These are the "fundamentals" that you seem to like.

I don't have an understanding of finance

Nor, it seems, of the law.

May I refer you to moneygrabbingexpert.com

I think I might have been the first to use that expression.

On this occasion it may be 'error' or 'omission', but that is always the first excuse companies use when they have been caught taken advantage of the public.

So exactly what do you think they stood to gain?

dunstonh wrote: »

Co-op will take legal advice on the issue and decide the appropriate action. They will almost certainly liaise with the FCA as largescale issues are usually brought to their attention.

The FCA may choose to fine the Co-op for this although, in the light of the Crystal Methodist scandal it may think the Co-op has suffered enough already.

As a collective, they will decide if any compensation or redress is due.

Looking at this case, but for the error of the Co-op, the OP would have paid the amount they agreed to pay.

As a result of the error, they paid the amount they actually paid.

So, if we subtract the amount they would have paid from the amount hey actually paid we get the redress figure.

My guess is that this will prove to be a nice round figure.

They can complain of course, but it would be rejected.

If they then go to FOS I would anticipate it being rejected as frivolous (i.e. silly) and vexatious (i.e. malicious).

loopdaloop

magpiecottage wrote: »

<snipped>

I disagree with you entirely and your subjective political biases are making what you say redundant. The fact of the matter is that in 2014, when things happen this significant compensation is often involved and co-op themselves have not ruled this out.

I would also consider your attempt at a parallel a breach of terms of conditions of this website due to the sarcastic nature of what you have written and its no wonder you don't get any reward.

I can also dispose of advice for 'free', and that is if you can not add anything constructive to this thread, please stay out of it and not type anything at all.

societys_child

loopdaloop wrote: »

. . . subjective political biases . . .

:huh:

. . . if you can not add anything constructive to this thread, please stay out of it and not type anything at all.

It's a public forum, you don't decide who can respond.

loopdaloop

:spam:

_societys_child wrote: »

:huh:

It's a public forum, you don't decide who can respond.

If you didn't snip down my quote you would have seen the whole of what I wrote was:

I can also dispose of advice for 'free', and that is if you can not add anything constructive to this thread, please stay out of it and not type anything at all.

which was my specific signature for that posting and also advice. Advice which you could take as well as this is a serious topic and I don't appreciate derailing.

societys_child

loopdaloop wrote: »

which was my specific signature for that posting and also advice. Advice which you could take as well as this is a serious topic and I don't appreciate derailing.

Not sure in what way my post was spam . . .?

I have to say though, it appears you don't "appreciate", and want to silence, any posters who don't pat your back and agree with everything you say.