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

nzmegs

RupertTheCat wrote: »

I was moved to NRAM, though I'm not in negative equity so I'm not sure why I ended up with them. Just my rotten luck I imagine.

I think we got moved to NRAM because we had a high loan to value mortgage. it was about 95% including the loan and then the loan was extended a little later. However at the time we got moved we had about 20,000 equity and only a little less now....

Got our letter too. Our loan was originally about 15,000 and we got 2,700. numbers off the top of my head tho as letter is not to hand. i am also wondering about the 8% interest. PPI claimants got that as a matter of course. i thought it was mandatory.

cot1198

lennonc1 wrote: »

Well I figured out I'd be due an extra £300 if statutory 8% is added, so how many thousand customer is there? So they are trying to save on potentially another half million!!!

We can take group action if there is at least 10 of us, the court will automatically try the case if it group action, worth a shot looking into maybe??

Could be worth looking into.
would that include the method of redress?

cot1198

shaney1981 wrote: »

I have received my letter acknowledging my complaint so I guess I will just have to wait. Unfortunately for nram I don't think they are going to get the grateful, bow down treatment they were expecting from most of us.... Lets see what they come up with

well said

If you are not happy with their method of redress you need to let them know ASAP before they credit your account with the redress, because after that I can see it getting very difficult to get it reversed,

cot1198

shredder91 wrote: »

had my letter through the post and i have received £4592 and reduced my term by 9 years.

In the letter they say that the redress is made up of interest and charges that have been applied to the account but it doesn't mention compound interest - should this also be applied and will we get a breakdown of what the redress is made up of?

i'm not saying i don't trust them but.......well, there is no is no other way of saying it, i don't trust them!

Ha ha ha
They want to sweep this under the carpet as soon as they can with as few people asking questions as they can. And this company is run on behalf of the tax payer.......

No I don't trust them either

lennonc1

cot1198 wrote: »

Could be worth looking into.
would that include the method of redress?

Hiya, yes that would be the main thing, plus questioning the additional interest. If we all ultimately want the same result then apparently it is easier, more cost effective and economical in court. It would be cost of representation split between everyone. Of course this would be last resort if we are turned down by nram and same with fos.

My conclusion is there is a massive conspiracy going on, I called office of fair trading who regulate cca etc as you can report company for non compliance of cca, and have licence revoked and fined,as this affects so many customers i thought theyd listen, i was basically told, off the record that it would need to be a group complaint and that the powers that be have their hands tied in the matter...so as it is government owned company now, they are getting away with it..
So much more to research but i am a one woman crusader at present lol.

lennonc1

cot1198 wrote: »

Could be worth looking into.
would that include the method of redress?

Check this link out first page on preface - Not sure where in country you are but I am in Scotland.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090724135150/http:/scotcons.demonweb.co.uk/publications/reports/documents/ClassActionsintheScottishCourts.Anewwaytoobtainredress.May1982.pdf

tracy7

Just to point out that the amount of redress you receive is not the only saving you make here. By reducing the loan by the amount you receive you will be paying less interest as a direct result of that from the day you receive it, and as much aggrieved as you might be with this mortgage product you chose and agreed the details when you entered into the agreement. Many people myself included could not have bought a house had this particular option not been available. You will also not be paying that amount of interest for a further number of years (the number by which your term has been reduced) so do consider how much money this can actually save you in the long term compared to other much smaller debts taken over a shorter period of time.

Much as many of you seem to want to get your hands on the money to reduce debts you need to realise the bigger picture here and the potential that it holds to make a huge saving. People need to think long term here not just the instant gratification of a couple of thousand pounds.

So in essence you are saving: the initial amount of interest applied as redress,
the reduction in interest from the day the redress is applied and the reduction in interest by reducing your loan term.

My mortgage and loan taken over 25 years equates to practically double what I took out in the first place so it makes absolute sense to reduce the term by as much as much as you can afford to and why redress is a very sensible and beneficial option.

As for interest on the amount which has been refunded, as many people have pointed out this agreement was made between you and northern rock and you agreed to the level of interest that would be charged and to pay it, this redress would never have occurred if it had not been for an oversight, an oversight which you would never have been aware of had they not admitted it, and something which has had absolutely no impact on your account. It is a happy bonus, but I can't help but think of vultures circling around their ill begotten prey. I respect that people have monetary problems in the current climate, with job losses etc but I think people should actually appreciate this bonus handed over on a silver plate, one which I do not in all actuality think we truly deserve.

The only real concession I think should be made is for the redress to be used to rectify arrears on their account, as I think this could be extremely valuable for people in dire need and give them some breathing space. I am lucky enough to not have any arrears on my account, but this could help a lot of people out of the brown sticky stuff and ease a lot of the financial burden, stresses and pressures on those concerned and I think this should be addressed.

unspec

lennonc1 wrote: »

Well I figured out I'd be due an extra £300 if statutory 8% is added, so how many thousand customer is there? So they are trying to save on potentially another half million!!!

We can take group action if there is at least 10 of us, the court will automatically try the case if it group action, worth a shot looking into maybe??

I would be interested in what response you get. I'm also tempted to ask about statutory interest on the monies.

ah1973

Got my letter on Monday, the mortgage was started in April 2007, the unsecured part of it being £16k. Interest refunded is stated as being £3005. Am rather pleased with that, effectively it's 6 months mortgage payments. Thank you very much NRAM, please can you make other similar mistakes to this please, see if you can write off more of this debt!

lennonc1

tracy7 wrote: »

Just to point out that the amount of redress you receive is not the only saving you make here. By reducing the loan by the amount you receive you will be paying less interest as a direct result of that from the day you receive it, and as much aggrieved as you might be with this mortgage product you chose and agreed the details when you entered into the agreement. Many people myself included could not have bought a house had this particular option not been available. You will also not be paying that amount of interest for a further number of years (the number by which your term has been reduced) so do consider how much money this can actually save you in the long term compared to other much smaller debts taken over a shorter period of time.

Much as many of you seem to want to get your hands on the money to reduce debts you need to realise the bigger picture here and the potential that it holds to make a huge saving. People need to think long term here not just the instant gratification of a couple of thousand pounds.

So in essence you are saving: the initial amount of interest applied as redress,
the reduction in interest from the day the redress is applied and the reduction in interest by reducing your loan term.

My mortgage and loan taken over 25 years equates to practically double what I took out in the first place so it makes absolute sense to reduce the term by as much as much as you can afford to and why redress is a very sensible and beneficial option.

As for interest on the amount which has been refunded, as many people have pointed out this agreement was made between you and northern rock and you agreed to the level of interest that would be charged and to pay it, this redress would never have occurred if it had not been for an oversight, an oversight which you would never have been aware of had they not admitted it, and something which has had absolutely no impact on your account. It is a happy bonus, but I can't help but think of vultures circling around their ill begotten prey. I respect that people have monetary problems in the current climate, with job losses etc but I think people should actually appreciate this bonus handed over on a silver plate, one which I do not in all actuality think we truly deserve.

The only real concession I think should be made is for the redress to be used to rectify arrears on their account, as I think this could be extremely valuable for people in dire need and give them some breathing space. I am lucky enough to not have any arrears on my account, but this could help a lot of people out of the brown sticky stuff and ease a lot of the financial burden, stresses and pressures on those concerned and I think this should be addressed.

Do you work for Nram?

You are entitled to your opinion. However I knew about the problems with statements years ago along with many others on another forum and this was highlighted to nram years ago, so we did know and so did they. I would have been able to get another mortgage no problem if I didnt take this Together mortgage. I have 35 year term from the advice of nram, 29 left to go, but I want to sell soon and if I do I will carry over the unsecured loan with an interest hike almost 4x, so paying quadruple what I am now is not a good prospect for me. I know this can be paid in cash I have already consulted my lawyer and read the full 127 pages of CCA 1974 and no where does that state company have right to choose method of redress....
The fact of the matter is they are non compliant with many sections and subsections of the cca so there is more going on than you think.
I think we have the right to decide. As many of us doing so by challenging that. I will take it as far as I have to in order for my rights to be heard and not dictated to by Nram.