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

Refund_me

PAUL67 wrote: »

I received my letter yesterday and told they we will contact me within 8 weeks with further info.

In the letter it states any redress will be credited to my account. Does this mean it will be treated as an overpayment on the account therefore available under the borrow back overpayments scheme. I only ask because to be honest if any redress was paid in cash i would prefer to allocate it to other debt with a higher interest rate. I know that the scheme is still in place with NRAM although I am unsure if that is only available on the mortgage part of the loan or whether it is any part of the together mortgage/loan.

Anybody with any ideas?

Is an interesting one for sure.

I guess you will be ahead of your payments per the repayment schedule so as per the terms of the agreement you would think that you could re-borrow yes, but I imagine they still have to grant this to you and then may be able to reject it at their discretion.

Sandgrownun

I've recieved a letter - I found this thread after googling to find out what the jiggins it's going on about! Anyway, I guess I'd better wait until they write to me again, but I'll try not to get too excited!

Hopelessly_Hopeful

Sandgrownun wrote: »

I've recieved a letter - I found this thread after googling to find out what the jiggins it's going on about! Anyway, I guess I'd better wait until they write to me again, but I'll try not to get too excited!

It's hard not to isnt it!

HHx

ClaretMatt_2

Cknocker wrote: »

I'm starting to think that this is a way of the government getting rid of the together loans.

Theres loads of people (myself included) who cannot get rid of these loans, due to minimal equity. This money goes straight onto the unsecured loan, meaning that most of us will be in a position to remortgage elsewhere, with the government receiving a flurry of redemptions.

I'm with you on this one. The cynic in me says that they want to wind up NRAM ASAP, but they can't start writing off loans willy nilly as there will be general outrage. However, if they can find one or more technicalities with which to pay "redress" it's more comfortable for them politically.

I think NRAM customers should be making a loud noise about getting a fairer deal with regards to the SVR, Loyalty rate and the draconian 8% penalty rate for unsecured loans which has trapped a good number of us into NRAM for the forseeable.

InkZ

The whole situation is ridiculous and I can't believe they are refunding people when they have suffered no loss. People taking out loans they couldn't afford is a different matter.

However, I had a loan £23500 on my together Mortgage which I paid off last year, and I have statements with no opening balance etc. By my calculations I could be due back between £2.5-3k.

I obviously called them up to give them my current address. I feel a total scrounger but I can't turn down the chance to get 3k back, especially after the pain of paying that 6.49% rate for 5 years :S

Hopelessly_Hopeful

InkZ wrote: »

The whole situation is ridiculous and I can't believe they are refunding people when they have suffered no loss. People taking out loans they couldn't afford is a different matter.

However, I had a loan £23500 on my together Mortgage which I paid off last year, and I have statements with no opening balance etc. By my calculations I could be due back between £2.5-3k.

I obviously called them up to give them my current address. I feel a total scrounger but I can't turn down the chance to get 3k back, especially after the pain of paying that 6.49% rate for 5 years :S

The loss is that they didn't fulfill their obligations, that's the law. We didn't make the law! This is how contracts work, like they say 6.49% that's what we pay. Rights and responsibilities come together.

HHx

GeorgeMc_2

I'm so confused, on some reports its saying its only unsecured loans and on others it's saying some secured loan customers will be affected as well including a statement on the NRAM website.

I'm still none the wiser if it will affect me, my situation is I took out a secured loan in Dec 07 for approx £12k, I've found a statement which covers late 2008 to early 2009, on it there is no figure for the original amount borrowed just the opening and closing balance but my mortgage is on there as well and there's no original amount borrowed for that either, is this the main reason for this issue?

I called NRAM in the week as I'm no longer with them and I've moved house twice since 2008. The lady I spoke to just took all my details and said I would hear in the next 8 weeks with a decision. I just don't think it's been made very clear exactly who it affects, I guess they don't really know themselves!!

GhIFA

Hopelessly_Hopeful wrote: »

The loss is that they didn't fulfill their obligations, that's the law. We didn't make the law! This is how contracts work, like they say 6.49% that's what we pay. Rights and responsibilities come together.

HHx

That's not a loss, it's a technicality.

Apples2

Hopelessly_Hopeful wrote: »

Rights and responsibilities come together.

HHx

if only more people on here thought that way when they are desperately grasping for a reason not to repay their loans.

The term responsibility is seldom used or accepted.

claret_mike

GhIFA -

The world is full of perceived unfairness and unjust. Your industry is littered with examples.. The FSA often looking at things in hindsight and then rule that things were not done correctly - even though at the time it was the correct way. Endowment mis-selling, pension mis-selling, PPI mis-selling etc.

You can even look currently at the FSCS levy which is costing more and more to those advisers/firms because there are less of you around and even though you may have far fewer complaints than say the banks, your fees are not proportionate.

Life is not always fair and within the scope of your defined morality.

If a set of laws/rules are set that say if you do not follow X, Y & Z then there will be consequences of this, then you follow rules X, Y & Z.

As I have been trying to read up and make sense of a very complex issue, I understand that the CCA was put in place to protect consumers from unscrupulous lenders offering loans on unfair terms.

Therefore it would seem that whilst no financial loss has been suffered by NRAM customers as such, they have broken the rules/law that form the CCA and therefore the prescribed penalties are applied - even though the mistake made may have been an oversight. these penalties are there to show others that they should remain compliant with the act and it's nice to see banks being proactive rather than opening up another opportunity the claims management companies. If banks had been like this with PPI etc...