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

Hopelessly_Hopeful

amn wrote: »

Yes they should have the original balance of the loan

Ooooh thanks. I hope you are correct, will be some pennies towards my debt.

HHx

fermi

What should be on statements?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/1167/schedule/1/made

Although may have been updated at some point after 2007.

Hopelessly_Hopeful

fermi wrote: »

What should be on statements?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/1167/schedule/1/made

Although may have been updated at some point after 2007.

Thanks Fermi

(f)any opening balance under the agreement at the beginning of the period to which the statement relates;

This doesn't state the original balance so I guess I am not due a refund!

Ah well, was worth a look

HHx

fermi

But.....

(b) the amount of credit provided and, where applicable, to be provided under the agreement (shown as one figure);

Hopelessly_Hopeful

Thanks Fermi, fingers crossed

HHx

rmart

Here is where I think NR have another big problem. My daughters took a together mortgage in 2006 the loan part was over 25k. The agreement said it was regulated by the 1974 CCA.

At this point it probably was not a problem. However, now they have cocked up by not following the CCA guidelines from 2008 to 2012 they create a new problem.

People like my daughters are going to say. Hey my agreement is covered by the 1974 CCA, it says so on the agreement you made me sign.

If northern rock say, no it is not, that was a mistake, you loan is over 25k so is not protected, then surely my daughters can say they were given bad advice and mis sold a product, therefore making it invalid.

There is more to unfold here imo.

suburbanwifey

Wywth wrote: »

Yep, I think that will cost each of us taxpayers about £9 each on average.

Remember, we're all in this together... unless you are one of the lucky 152,000 about to pocket an average £1775 as a result

Who needs the National Lottery when you can play the Northern Rock?

The tax payer is all of us, correct. The Govt. get their tax from all of us out here, most of us don't get value for money for the sheer amount of tax they take from us, me especially! I pay a freaking fortune out by force. I personally have nothing to do with this NRAM debacle but am reading this thread out of interest. I am wondering why some are complaining that the tax payer will pay? I think its great some people out here will get something back from all the money we have paid in, better that than it going to wars, foreign aid or funding the lush lifestyles of MP's!

jamtree

I cant find my paperwork for my loan
I get seperate statements for my loan and mortgage
when i got my loan i do remember that the interest rate i received was the same rate as my mortgage
if this was tied to the mortgage should i recieve one or seperate statements

carlyberyl

rmart wrote: »

Here is where I think NR have another big problem. My daughters took a together mortgage in 2006 the loan part was over 25k. The agreement said it was regulated by the 1974 CCA.

At this point it probably was not a problem. However, now they have cocked up by not following the CCA guidelines from 2008 to 2012 they create a new problem.

People like my daughters are going to say. Hey my agreement is covered by the 1974 CCA, it says so on the agreement you made me sign.

If northern rock say, no it is not, that was a mistake, you loan is over 25k so is not protected, then surely my daughters can say they were given bad advice and mis sold a product, therefore making it invalid.

There is more to unfold here imo.

This is exactly our problem!

VT82

I've come straight to the end after reading this in the news so I'm sure plenty of people have been thinking the same as me...

The taxpayer is going to foot the bill to grossly over-'compensate' people for a minor techincal mistake which didn't cost anyone any money??? And it's OK because it involves a bank, which everyone seems to consider to be a public service / charity (whether state owned or not) these days ???