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

lauraeast23

Evenfields wrote: »

Yes, but perhaps Martin :money: and the Money Saving Expert team or their advisers can look at this (please) and advise people as to what their rights ACTUALLY are to demand their rebate in cash direct to them and not just taken off the balance. Perhaps they can highlight people's rights as it affects so many people. Where does it say that customers don't have a choice and that it must come off the balance other than on NRAM's website and their say so? :mad:

Request to MSE forum team - can you please look at this. Thanks!

This is a very valid point that in all honesty I hadn't given any thought to.

Surely if we do not agree for the terms of our intial loan to be changed, i.e. monthly payment amount or loan term then they cannot enforce that this redress is credited back to our account.

I want to use the money to pay down some debt but would much rather clear my credit card which I can then close and be rid of than have it credited back to my account with NRAM.

Anyone have any more opinions or legal views on how this can be handled ?

Evenfields

lauraeast23 wrote: »

This is a very valid point that in all honesty I hadn't given any thought to.

Surely if we do not agree for the terms of our intial loan to be changed, i.e. monthly payment amount or loan term then they cannot enforce that this redress is credited back to our account.

I want to use the money to pay down some debt but would much rather clear my credit card which I can then close and be rid of than have it credited back to my account with NRAM.

Anyone have any more opinions or legal views on how this can be handled ?

Hi, thanks for re-highlighting what I have posted before.

In real terms if NRAM are going to alter payments then I think they would be on a sticky wicket! How can they alter the nature of the agreement so drastically by cutting contractual payments to a permanent and different amount? The word is contractual. I honestly think this is ridiculous. For example, if in the future any customer gets into difficulties and doesn't keep up to date with payments, and it ended up in court, the creditor i.e. NRAM would need to show the original agreement which would state completely different contractual payments to any stated in arrears. I honestly think they haven't thought this through -REALLY! Also wouldn't lower payments over the same term, affect the APR? This is a key fact in a consumer credit agreement.

I can't think HOW they can make customers agree to this or refuse to pay the interest back directly. In effect they are asking you to make payments in advance (using the interest they shouldn't have charged customers) to the loan account, and in exchange they then lower the monthly contractual payments. Crazy as stated above, the monthly contractual payments would not bear any correlation to the contract/agreement.:eek:

So all NRAM/NORTHERN ROCK customers, simply demand that as you've already paid this money (i.e. unlawful interest) which was included in the past payments, you are entitled to be redressed directly.

As this affects so many people it is in the public interest. So normally the OFT don't get involved in individual disputes, however as there are thousands, then if NRAM/NORTHERN ROCK want to argue with customers over this, then the OFT can then step in.

But first, customers need to tell NRAM/NORTHERN ROCK that they are not willing to alter the terms and therefore as they owe money :T to customers, they should pay it back directly. Demand it!

craaaigo

They're not altering the terms of your contract though.The interest rate will remain the same (at either what you fixed it at or the SVR) as will the term of your loan.

craaaigo

In my opinion people are barking up the wrong tree with this as the real issue everyone should be asking is whether or not they are going to pay YOU any interest for the money that they've kept that they weren't entitled to.

craaaigo

lauraeast23 wrote: »

Anyone have any more opinions or legal views on how this can be handled ?

If you feel strongly about this then your only avenue is to make a complaint to NRAM. They are bound by strict procedures and deadlines when dealing with complaints and should they not reply within 8 weeks with a full response (or you are unhappy with their response) then you can go to the Financial Ombudsman Service. They are an independent arbitrator with the power to enforce action upon NRAM.

lennonc1

Yes but is it not best to wait the 12 weeks they have stated then we will know how it will affect the loan and how much redress then if not willing to pay directly then complain including the above points, that not original terms of contract and should remain the same and cash paid! I actually believe within the 12 weeks they will offer cash payment as there must be so many loopholes regarding this, I will try and get legal advice on this and post my findings!

jennmark

ive had both the letters, pleasantly surprised and estimated i should get around 1800 knocked off the balance. a question though, i took out a mortgage and an unsecured loan as a together mortgage 7 years ago, the unsecured bit was about 12000, a couple of years later we took some additional borrowing (~7k) which was secured. the letters all refer to the unsecured loan but i have seen news items and mention on here of redress for secured loans, do you think i'm likely to be eligable for redress on the additional borrowing?

lennonc1

If your additional borrowing was regulated by the Fsa then probably not, I think because the unsecured loans were covered by Cca then that is where the non compliance lies!! Check your paperwork to see if it says regulated by Fsa if not then I'd question nram about it!

picardygirl

posted in error

marney24

well for me the biggest argument we should all have is, its our money not nrams, so who are they, to decide how my money will be spent,


We should all be making, way more of a fuss about this very point?