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

cot1198

lennonc1 wrote: »

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!

I agree, we need to wait and see what happens.
Although I would be interested why you think NRAM would make cash offers when they have stated the will be taking any redress off the balance of the loan. Also the company now running NRAM is only interested in one thing, getting the tax payers money back ASAP. So I would think paying another £270 million out of public funds is totally out of the question. Far easier to write off a debt than pay more money out. I would love any redress to be paid in cash but I just can't see it happening unless there is a point of law that says it should be done.

GeorgeMc_2

Oops wrong thread! Sorry

cot1198

cot1198 wrote: »

I agree, we need to wait and see what happens.
Although I would be interested why you think NRAM would make cash offers when they have stated the will be taking any redress off the balance of the loan. Also the company now running NRAM is only interested in one thing, getting the tax payers money back ASAP. So I would think paying another £270 million out of public funds is totally out of the question. Far easier to write off a debt than pay more money out. I would love any redress to be paid in cash but I just can't see it happening unless there is a point of law that says it should be done.

I do think there is weight to the argument that the redress is not compensation, it is the interest wrongly taken from customers.
The point is that if NRAM did not need to do this by law they would not be doing it. So I do think it a bit strange that it was their mistake but they get to decide where the money goes.

cot1198

cot1198 wrote: »

I do think there is weight to the argument that the redress is not compensation, it is the interest wrongly taken from customers.
The point is that if NRAM did not need to do this by law they would not be doing it. So I do think it a bit strange that it was their mistake but they get to decide where the money goes.

NRAM may be hoping not too many people make a fuss because they are now run on behalf of the tax payer. But I don't think they should treated any differently to any other bank or building society.
Can you imagine if this had happened at HSBC there would be 150,000 customers baying for blood and compensation not just their interest back in cash.

Jenny2010

I am entitled to the re dress but i've overpaid £3000 on my unsecured loan since 2010 would I also be able to claim the interest I've saved doidn this to? Any one have any rough ideas how much I'll be entitled to on an unsecured part of the loan being £24k? Thanks in advance

cot1198

Jenny2010 wrote: »

I am entitled to the re dress but i've overpaid £3000 on my unsecured loan since 2010 would I also be able to claim the interest I've saved doidn this to? Any one have any rough ideas how much I'll be entitled to on an unsecured part of the loan being £24k? Thanks in advance

As far as I can tell it is just the interest charged that NRAM is giving as redress. I would contact NRAM and try to speak to someone to get an answer on that one.

cot1198

Just sent this to the MSE news email address

Dear Martin
I am a forum member currently active on the main NRAM CCA thread.
I would like to ask if the money saving expert team have any plans to look into
NRAM's decision to only pay redress to existing customers by reducing the balance of their loans.
Specifically the legality of this and our rights as customers.
As this affects 150,000 customers I feel it is worth looking into.
I would appreciate any help or advice you could give on this matter as I am sure other forum members would too.

cot1198

marney24

cot1198 wrote: »

Just sent this to the MSE news email address

Dear Martin
I am a forum member currently active on the main NRAM CCA thread.
I would like to ask if the money saving expert team have any plans to look into
NRAM's decision to only pay redress to existing customers by reducing the balance of their loans.
Specifically the legality of this and our rights as customers.
As this affects 150,000 customers I feel it is worth looking into.
I would appreciate any help or advice you could give on this matter as I am sure other forum members would too.

cot1198

I agree, its about time we started the ball rolling on this redress lark.

Lets just hope martin gets behind this.

Keith

Surely you are happy to get a few k off your mortgage?

cot1198

Keith wrote: »

Surely you are happy to get a few k off your mortgage?

Would I be happy? yes of course I would.
I think the point is NRAM are not giving people the choice of either paying the redress off their loan balance or having it in their pocket. I don't think it's right that NRAM gets to choose when it was their mistake with our money, we have paid it to them.
I can't speak for anybody else but shortening the term or reducing payments(if that is even legal under the terms of the loan) does not interest me as much as money in the bank does. At the moment it's a case of needing to be happy about getting the redress taken off the loan because thats the only choice we have