Nationwide "Refund"

PaulDSmith

Hi all

I've had a letter from the Nationwide BS regarding interest and charges that accrued on a loan account I had back in 2012. They say that because the loan went into arrears, they should not have charged me around £1,200. However because I settled the loan with a settlement figure of around 70% of the outstanding balance, they have set this £1,200 against the balance outstanding. Hence no refund.
My argument is that the overcharge of £1,200 should either be refunded as they agreed the settlement figure and should take the hit, or alternatively the settlement figure should have been calculated on the final balance minus the £1,200 (make sense?). Either way I believe I am due something back.
Anyone else had any luck with this scenario?

Thanks in advance
Paul

Nasqueron

Was the £1200 less than the amount they wrote off?

If they wrote off more than £1200 they are well within their rights to do so. Their agreement of a settlement figure is just to stop chasing you and to waive the right to pursue you for the full balance through courts - the debt itself still exists.

If you didn't pay back more than £1200 and you think they owe you money then you really are on cloud cuckoo land to think they owe you anything. Be grateful they didn't demand full payment and you can sleep better knowing some more of your unpaid debt is now clear.

dunstonh

My argument is that the overcharge of £1,200 should either be refunded as they agreed the settlement figure and should take the hit,

I'm afraid your argument is flawed. You didnt pay the money. So, expecting a refund of money you didnt pay is illogical. Thankfully, the rules on this are pretty clear. They are allowed to offset the capital part of the redress against any debt that is in arrears, defaulted or had an amount written off as an agreed settlement.

lternatively the settlement figure should have been calculated on the final balance minus the £1,200 (make sense?). Either way I believe I am due something back.

If the amount written off was say £800 and the redress £1200 then you should get the £400 difference. If the debt written off was greater than £1200 then you shouldnt.

glentoran99

Had this issue with Halifax and went to ombudsman, they paid up, Had this issue with someone else, went to ombudsman the ombudsman agreed with them, Chance your arm

dunstonh

glentoran99 wrote: »

Had this issue with Halifax and went to ombudsman, they paid up, Had this issue with someone else, went to ombudsman the ombudsman agreed with them, Chance your arm

The decision should be consistent. I suspect in your case one, the ownership of the debt was the issue.

Where a lender sells the debt to a third party collection company and has no right of return to the original lender, then they are not allowed to set off the redress against the debt.

Where a lender kept the debt in house (which can involve the services of a third party collection agency without actually selling it to them) or the debt can be returned to lender then the redress can be set off.

They are the guidelines that the FOS follow.

glentoran99

dunstonh wrote: »

The decision should be consistent. I suspect in your case one, the ownership of the debt was the issue.

Where a lender sells the debt to a third party collection company and has no right of return to the original lender, then they are not allowed to set off the redress against the debt.

Where a lender kept the debt in house (which can involve the services of a third party collection agency without actually selling it to them) or the debt can be returned to lender then the redress can be set off.

They are the guidelines that the FOS follow.

Nope, both were exactly the same situation, in the first instance the FOS wrote to creditor and they then change their mind and paid up. Didnt actually go to a decision as such,


Second instance went all the way to an actual ombudsman and they upheld creditor decision. In the first instance they refunded an amount equal to what the difference in the settlement figure would have been

dunstonh

The FOS do have a reputation for being inconsistent. Its a shame as things like that shouldnt happen. Although you will no doubt not mind in this case as you benefited from it.

glentoran99

dunstonh wrote: »

The FOS do have a reputation for being inconsistent. Its a shame as things like that shouldnt happen. Although you will no doubt not mind in this case as you benefited from it.

definitely not, as certainly I don't think I was entitled to it, but was worth a go as I said to op, depends who you get the day you phone them, The point I argued was the settlement figure would have been less and I possible could have even afforded the full amount