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

cot1198

lennonc1 wrote: »

Good news -

The court hearing has been adjourned!

NRAM has been ordered by a judge to present evidence of its titles. The mortgage deed presented - signed only by the borrower - was insufficient evidence of title absent of signature from the bank required under UK law, and NRAM are unable to provide accounting evidence of money loaned.

After ignoring me for 9 months under exemption from FOIA or any other inquiry it appears that they do have to answer to the courts.

We have a second hearing in a month and urgently need to get news of this adjournment out into the public domain as soon as possible.

This is good news

What implications could it have for those of us fighting the CCA redress method if any? Also what legal implications are there if NRAM can not produce the evidence the judge has asked for?

lennonc1

We are investigating the actual legality of all together mortgages from nram. They do not seem to have any actual evidence of our mortgages apart from our signature on application form and their name on deeds, that does not constitute a lawful mortgage in the uk.

lennonc1

The defence statement below was made in a UK court of law around 10 a.m. this morning by two tax paying UK parents with 2 under 10 children (and a house full of family possessions) after being issued notice of eviction by NRAM with no hearing and with no advice or support.

The court was adjourned requesting further evidence of title.

The NRAM legal representative was shocked by the result after deeming this a black and white eviction. This the first real challenge to NRAM's title(s) I know of.

In case you haven't heard of NRAM they are they government owned debt collection agency that used to be Northern Rock forcing people from their hokmes. The OFT and FOS are refusing to investigate nor offer explanations of their rejections to the growing numbers of complaints being made about NRAM.

NRAM's practices and legal privileges of privacy and indemnity have been pushed to the Treasury Secretary who claims that despite owning 100% of NRAM and being owed £45 billion by its parent company UKAR they claim no responsibility for it whatsoever and must protect its "commercial interest" though it has no commercial interests other than to grab property and close down its books asap. The treasury owns the whole setup, including the £45 billion debt owed to itself through the company. Tax payer national debt repayments are being "balanced" by an increase in Treasury equity as time goes on.

Increasing numbers of MPs are being informed of NRAM's abusive behaviour and failures to provide evidence of its purported titles, and this will be an ongoing effort.


===Defence Statement===

Your honour,

I request that Northern Rock Asset Management 's claim of debt and rights to possession are dismissed on the basis that NRAM (formerly known as Northern Rock PLC) is unable to provide evidence of its residential mortgage titles - neither as mortgagor nor proprietor of land - insofar as it has:

failed to present evidence of a legal mortgage contract that is pursuant to UK law (as indicated in its mortgage product's invalidated Terms and Conditions) with particular reference to the Law Of Property Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1989.
failed to provide accounting evidence of a performance, consideration, risk or loss sufficient to justify repayment of the full principal and interest debt amounts purported to be owed.
failed to provide details of a purported duty to service a Contractual Monthly Subscription possibly superseding a duty to repay a credit debt and accrued interest. I have not knowingly entered into a subscription contract with NRAM and I seek to ensure that a there have been no undisclosed contractual alterations and to establish whether (as implied by a change in terms) a former duty to repay credit/interest has been invalidated or discharged.
failed to present audit of NRAM's activities to confirm no breaches of conduct whilst acting as trusted agent of attorney.

If immediate dismissal based on the evidence and statements provided is not possible I request an adjournment and issue of a time order to ensure NRAM presents evidence to fully qualify its titles before being permitted to proceed with a repossession by the court and claim any outstanding debt.

Thank you,

drussmonkey

cot1198 wrote: »

A little tip for you. Don't try to take the moral high ground while being rude and offensive to other users, It does not work.

A little tip for you straight back - don't put too much faith into someone spearheading a doomed campaign that a) Cannot type, or at least put care in to typing, and b) Doesn't have any understanding of basic legal terms.

So who am I to judge? Someone capable of both of the above.

I wouldn't mind so much if this was really over a point of principle, rather than a greediness of wanting the money back as cash. Despite the (poorly typed) protests to the contrary, essentially that's all it is. People that don't actually care that knocking it off the remaining balance is actually the best thing for them financially, and the best thing for a beleagured wind-up company whose stable existence depends on closing out accounts without unnecessary delay.

In any event, I received my redress long ago and I'm more than satisfied. Checking in to this thread to see the doggered delusions of those that want the cash is just a point of curiousity for me.

Chrisb80

Lennonc1 - great news on the court case, although not being a legal boff, what does this actually mean to us in terms that I will understand?!

I have been keeping an eye on this thread but actually I'm a £25k+ customer and as you know am currently waiting for the FOS to come back for a second time. Will this legal stuff affect customers like me?

Thanks

cot1198

drussmonkey wrote: »

A little tip for you straight back - don't put too much faith into someone spearheading a doomed campaign that a) Cannot type, or at least put care in to typing, and b) Doesn't have any understanding of basic legal terms.

So who am I to judge? Someone capable of both of the above.

I wouldn't mind so much if this was really over a point of principle, rather than a greediness of wanting the money back as cash. Despite the (poorly typed) protests to the contrary, essentially that's all it is. People that don't actually care that knocking it off the remaining balance is actually the best thing for them financially, and the best thing for a beleagured wind-up company whose stable existence depends on closing out accounts without unnecessary delay.

In any event, I received my redress long ago and I'm more than satisfied. Checking in to this thread to see the doggered delusions of those that want the cash is just a point of curiousity for me.

Thanks for the concern, but I never put my faith into anything I don't know anything about. I put my faith in what I know and what I can learn for myself. from what I have learned about NRAM in the past few months I know questions need to be asked of them, not just about the redress method but about their operations in general and the legality of their actions. I have never had a problem with people who are happy with NRAM's chosen redress method, that is down to the individual. We all have a right to give our views on the subject, the point I was trying to make was there is no need to make that point in a rude way. That is all.

andy.m_2

I wish everyone good luck.
You are doomed to fail on only one point.

Redress is designed to put you into a position that you were in prior, not put cash in your pocket and leave you to pay off over a longer period

lennonc1

This is more point over principle to be honest, you are right saying redress our loan is best option. We plan to sell over next few months so has worked out well. We now have several issues regarding the legality of theses mortgages. We can only wait as this is being investigated and have another hearing next month so will know more then.

I understand when you say it's doomed campaign but this isn't only for redress method, we are helping people facing repossession off our own back, we have many emails asking for help with different issues. And we are doing our best to help! I may not be the smartest person around, I am still young and learning, but I do not need to justify myself, as I am doing as much as I can to help people so my conscience is clear thank you.

jimbo5661

I'm very greatful to the hard work that you're doing and I'm sure there are many more like me that check this and other threads on a daily basis. I had an unsecured loan of 26,400 taken out in 2004 so mainly have an interest in the other thread. Thanks for your efforts to date!

plymouthscubagirl

Yay i got my letter today stating redress. I'm not an ex customer as I still have my mortgage with them, but I had paid off the loan part a few years ago, so guess they are working through the list of current/ex customers :j