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

GhIFA

claret_mike wrote: »

Interest has been charged when the prescribed terms of the act state it should not be charged.

We have therefore been charged when we should not.

We have therefore suffered a financial loss as the money we have been paying should have been reducing our balance further. We have therefore been financially disadvantaged.

Not a difficult one to work out that is it?

Is your IFA status real?:eek:

Without wishing to be pedantic, based on the details of your loan which you set out, this makes no difference to you because this act doesn't cover your loan.

claret_mike

GhIFA wrote: »

Is that best you can come up with. Questioning my professional status? No need to be insulting.

Interest has been charged as prescribed by the terms of your agreement. The refund issue is a technical one based on presentation of paperwork. You haven't lost out, you have paid the interest you were supposed to, not a penny more, which the law now states you can have refunded due to this technical issue. There is no material loss to you.

I am questioning your status tongue in cheek because you have stated that no financial loss has occurred when clearly people have been charged when they should not have and they have still paid it.

How many advisers in the early 1990's early 00's sold with profit bonds and did not explain MVR's etc because it would never happen. How many adviser's were happy to flog products where they were paid more commission etc.

More recently there have been SCARPs sold where fines were issued because paperwork was not clear and there was issues surrounding not fully explaining counterparty risk etc.

My point is that the financial services industry is full of examples where products have been sold without full disclosure yet you seem to live in the world of idealism where everybody considers every aspect of everything before making a decision.

Ultimately - if you see that your loan is regulated by CCA, that in itself gives confidence without needing to know the ins and outs - you are regulated by the FSA - do your clients fully research what that regulation means? No.. Did consumers realise that up to the end of this month you could be an adviser with just qualifications at GCSE level?

It's not a technical issue as you put it - it's a legal issue and the law was put in place to protect joe public from unscrupulous tricks by lenders.

You pick and choose your arguments accordingly

GhIFA

claret_mike wrote: »

I am questioning your status tongue in cheek because you have stated that no financial loss has occurred when clearly people have been charged when they should not have and they have still paid it.

How many advisers in the early 1990's early 00's sold with profit bonds and did not explain MVR's etc because it would never happen. How many adviser's were happy to flog products where they were paid more commission etc.

More recently there have been SCARPs sold where fines were issued because paperwork was not clear and there was issues surrounding not fully explaining counterparty risk etc.

My point is that the financial services industry is full of examples where products have been sold without full disclosure yet you seem to live in the world of idealism where everybody considers every aspect of everything before making a decision.

Ultimately - if you see that your loan is regulated by CCA, that in itself gives confidence without needing to know the ins and outs - you are regulated by the FSA - do your clients fully research what that regulation means? No.. Did consumers realise that up to the end of this month you could be an adviser with just qualifications at GCSE level?

It's not a technical issue as you put it - it's a legal issue and the law was put in place to protect joe public from unscrupulous tricks by lenders.

You pick and choose your arguments accordingly

The point is though, the error occurs on an annual statement, which covers your payments for the previous year, it is a refund of interest payments already made. I see it as a technicality, you don't, we'll have to agree to differ. Either way, you can't be at a loss if you pay what you expect and agreed to pay - you can be due a refund if an error is then made, which is the situation here.

Maybe all my clients don't fully understand regulation, but I set out my regulatory status at the very beginning of an initial meeting, explaining what that means, how I operate, and what their rights are if things go wrong. As I said a couple of days ago though, when I enter into a transaction with a professional in any other walk of life, I also do my own research, so I have an understanding. I can't grasp why people (not all) who take borrowing on this level do not give it as much careful consideration and then cry foul when it all goes wrong.

My stance remains the same, and as I have said on the other thread, NR has to fulfil their legal obligations, and extend them if at further fault. The issue is that these are not all cases of mis-selling, there are a good number of cases where it is of a result of people who have over-extended themselves because they have not thought things through properly themselves and are now crying mis-selling off of the back of an act they have never heard of before as a means of discharging responsibility, and want everyone else to pay.

I have no wish to get involved in arguments on here, that is not the purpose of these forums. I apologise if you feel I have been "out of order", however, we are all entitled to our opinions. It may be that NR decide to extend their offer to those they may not be legally obliged to, and if so then those people have had a good result - that doesn't necessarily mean I have to agree with that though when I effectively have to make a contribution to it.

I am going to withdraw from this discussion now- I have made my points on a number of occasions, and we're never going to all agree on what should happen. As I say, I have no wish to get involved in arguments, rather stimulating debates.

Hopelessly_Hopeful

GhIFA wrote: »

The point is though, the error occurs on an annual statement, which covers your payments for the previous year, it is a refund of interest payments already made. I see it as a technicality, you don't, we'll have to agree to differ. Either way, you can't be at a loss if you pay what you expect and agreed to pay - you can be due a refund if an error is then made, which is the situation here.

Maybe all my clients don't fully understand regulation, but I set out my regulatory status at the very beginning of an initial meeting, explaining what that means, how I operate, and what their rights are if things go wrong. As I said a couple of days ago though, when I enter into a transaction with a professional in any other walk of life, I also do my own research, so I have an understanding. I can't grasp why people (not all) who take borrowing on this level do not give it as much careful consideration and then cry foul when it all goes wrong.

My stance remains the same, and as I have said on the other thread, NR has to fulfil their legal obligations, and extend them if at further fault. The issue is that these are not all cases of mis-selling, there are a good number of cases where it is of a result of people who have over-extended themselves because they have not thought things through properly themselves and are now crying mis-selling off of the back of an act they have never heard of before as a means of discharging responsibility, and want everyone else to pay.

I have no wish to get involved in arguments on here, that is not the purpose of these forums. I apologise if you feel I have been "out of order", however, we are all entitled to our opinions. It may be that NR decide to extend their offer to those they may not be legally obliged to, and if so then those people have had a good result - that doesn't necessarily mean I have to agree with that though when I effectively have to make a contribution to it.

I am going to withdraw from this discussion now- I have made my points on a number of occasions, and we're never going to all agree on what should happen. As I say, I have no wish to get involved in arguments, rather stimulating debates.

I am all for free speach and respecting someone's right to their opinion, however, it is the way that things are said that make the difference. As the song goes it's not what you do it's the way that you do it!

I think it would be good if the thread could get back on subject.

Have a good day.

HHx

jimbo5661

claret_mike wrote: »

I am questioning your status tongue in cheek because you have stated that no financial loss has occurred when clearly people have been charged when they should not have and they have still paid it.

How many advisers in the early 1990's early 00's sold with profit bonds and did not explain MVR's etc because it would never happen. How many adviser's were happy to flog products where they were paid more commission etc.

More recently there have been SCARPs sold where fines were issued because paperwork was not clear and there was issues surrounding not fully explaining counterparty risk etc.

My point is that the financial services industry is full of examples where products have been sold without full disclosure yet you seem to live in the world of idealism where everybody considers every aspect of everything before making a decision.

Ultimately - if you see that your loan is regulated by CCA, that in itself gives confidence without needing to know the ins and outs - you are regulated by the FSA - do your clients fully research what that regulation means? No.. Did consumers realise that up to the end of this month you could be an adviser with just qualifications at GCSE level?

It's not a technical issue as you put it - it's a legal issue and the law was put in place to protect joe public from unscrupulous tricks by lenders.

You pick and choose your arguments accordingly

Well said! I remember back when I worked in a bank and the in branch advisors were making massive commissions selling with profit bonds like confetti - full in the knowledge that the returns for the client would be much higher elsewhere.

Back on topic I can see this one running and running. One benefit of all this could see persons able to remortgage at a much better rate, or be finally able to move to another house. Either way it can free up cash to help get the economy moving through increased money supply within the general populous and the benifits of getting the housing market going again... not a bad way of spending tax payers money?!

bigadaj

jimbo5661 wrote: »

Well said! I remember back when I worked in a bank and the in branch advisors were making massive commissions selling with profit bonds like confetti - full in the knowledge that the returns for the client would be much higher elsewhere.

Back on topic I can see this one running and running. One benefit of all this could see persons able to remortgage at a much better rate, or be finally able to move to another house. Either way it can free up cash to help get the economy moving through increased money supply within the general populous and the benifits of getting the housing market going again... not a bad way of spending tax payers money?!

But that's not going to help anyone surely. The people complaining g about 'high' rates are paying rates that prime borrowers would have been desperate for a few years ago

House prices are still way too high when compared to wages, wages aren't increasing so logically the only way to get the housing market moving is for prices to fall. But all the borrowers who will benefit from moving out of negative equity still won't be able to trade up, so still. Stagnant market. Also this is all paid for by the government, so more unsustainable debt, and more cuts elsewhere in oublic sector.

geeka

are people still getting letters?

DIY_Dave

Has anyone who has paid back the original loan received a letter?

I remortgaged my 2007 together mortgage in 2011 and left the unsecured loan with NRAM, this was paid off in June 2012.

I haven't received a letter as of yet.

davross

DIY_Dave wrote: »

Has anyone who has paid back the original loan received a letter?

I remortgaged my 2007 together mortgage in 2011 and left the unsecured loan with NRAM, this was paid off in June 2012.

I haven't received a letter as of yet.

I moved my borrowing from NRAM to another lender in 2011 and havent got a letter yet. I just called NR and was told that they are dealing with exisiting customers first and "redeemed accounts" after and that if affected I should recieve a letter in the next 2 weeks.

HTH

bunnygreen

geeka wrote: »

are people still getting letters?

I really hope so! I keep going to the door each day hoping there will be a letter! So far, nothing! But I'm just hoping that perhaps with the numbers they are sending out, it still could be a few days before receiving it! Maybe wishful thinking!