MSE News: Northern Rock pays £270m to 150,000 after gaffe

firehamster

daisymay2008 wrote: »

Is there any ex customers on here who have had any redress yet??

Not yet, but spoke to NRAM today who said they were starting to work through ex-customers now. Those that had redeemed most recently would be dealt with first. Fingers crossed...

daisymay2008

firehamster wrote: »

Not yet, but spoke to NRAM today who said they were starting to work through ex-customers now. Those that had redeemed most recently would be dealt with first. Fingers crossed...

ours was redeemed in april 2011 :mad: so probably also near the bottom of that pile!

kazonuk

firehamster wrote: »

Not yet, but spoke to NRAM today who said they were starting to work through ex-customers now. Those that had redeemed most recently would be dealt with first. Fingers crossed...

Thanks for this info Firehamster, I am an ex-NRAM customer too (since August 2012) and have heard absolutely nothing as yet. Customer from 2006-2012 and unsecured loan of under £25k

Even a letter would be something! :mad:

chips78

kazonuk wrote: »

Thanks for this info Firehamster, I am an ex-NRAM customer too (since August 2012) and have heard absolutely nothing as yet. Customer from 2006-2012 and unsecured loan of under £25k

Even a letter would be something! :mad:

Im in the same position ex customer from Jan 2012, no letter.

Glitterball_2

firehamster wrote: »

Not yet, but spoke to NRAM today who said they were starting to work through ex-customers now. Those that had redeemed most recently would be dealt with first. Fingers crossed...

I redeemed my NRAM mortgage last December, literally days before the initial announcement about all this. I've just received a letter, just dated May 2013, saying that there will be yet another delay - I'm not typing all of it out but here are the important bits:

[Referring to their Feb 2013 letter] We stated that due to the complex nature of the CCA regulations, the review was taking longer than expected, and as a result, we required more time to complete this process and would write to you in the next 12 weeks.

However, since then your loan account has redeemed [not true! It was before then], meaning this process will now take slightly longer. This is because we are currently focussing our efforts on applying redress to accounts that remain open, before we start to address those accounts that have redeemed.

Please be assured that we are doing everything we can to resolve this as quickly as possible. The process for existing customers is almost complete, therefore we expect to be able to review your account and write to you by the end of June.

Since your account has redeemed and you are no longer making interest payments each month, the delay will not affect the amount of redress that you are entitled to, if applicable.

So yet more delay, but at least an estimated time by which I should have a refund/excuse for not refunding. I don't know if accounts redeemed much earlier will have a longer deadline.

Also re the last paragraph, the delay will surely affect the amount of interest payable on any refunded money, even though the actual refunded amount won't change; I hope they're not intending to try to get away with not paying interest.

Hope this is useful!

IainHL

Glitterball wrote: »

.
.
.
Also re the last paragraph, the delay will surely affect the amount of interest payable on any refunded money, even though the actual refunded amount won't change; I hope they're not intending to try to get away with not paying interest.

Well yes they are actually! It would seem that they are not paying interest (statutory or contractural) on the money they have had but shouldn't have. Instead they are effectively charging zero interest on the account for the period they were in default, and applying all monies received to the capital. At least that is my understanding from reading about the revised statements others have received.

In fact they couldn't really pay you contractural interest, for that would be like a double refund. However there is an argument to say that they should consider paying statutory interest (8% per annum simple), because that is what you could claim if you made a County Court claim against them.

Glitterball_2

IainHL wrote: »

Well yes they are actually! It would seem that they are not paying interest (statutory or contractural) on the money they have had but shouldn't have. Instead they are effectively charging zero interest on the account for the period they were in default, and applying all monies received to the capital. At least that is my understanding from reading about the revised statements others have received.

In fact they couldn't really pay you contractural interest, for that would be like a double refund. However there is an argument to say that they should consider paying statutory interest (8% per annum simple), because that is what you could claim if you made a County Court claim against them.

Thanks for this, it's very useful Yes, it's the statutory 8% interest I meant, I don't see how they can justify not paying that. We'll see, I guess, but I'd rather they didn't mess about and try to pull stunts like that, and just got it sorted properly. I'm sure I've been a lot more patient than they would have been if I'd owed them money...

daisymay2008

Glitterball wrote: »

Thanks for this, it's very useful Yes, it's the statutory 8% interest I meant, I don't see how they can justify not paying that. We'll see, I guess, but I'd rather they didn't mess about and try to pull stunts like that, and just got it sorted properly. I'm sure I've been a lot more patient than they would have been if I'd owed them money...

they are cowboys, 5-6 months to sort this in my opinion is laughable, I have made a direct complaint to them and will then refer to FOS simply over how long it is taking them to deal with it, not sure the FOS would take that complaint seriously though

lennonc1

FOS have shafted us all.......

I have received my final response from the fos, which says they will be taking no further action on this matter, no explaination at all!!

I cannot believe this!! I only asked for the money to be returned to my bank account and not my loan.
Others with over 25k loans have also received their reply that they are not entitled to redress as it is not covered and not mis-sold.

Nram have the fos in their pocket, I wonder why?? Perhaps because this came from a government decree!!!!

We now have to take this further. I am on a mission

Poolie

Can you not appeal directly to the FOS or would it require the court of appeal to ask a Judge to look into it?