Northern rock loan over £25,000

GhIFA

jimbo5661 wrote: »

Further to above, if the IFA's explained the products they sell including the fees / charges / potential pitfalls rather than just get their customers to sign here, here and here then (with quick proc fees in mind) then I'm sure many of the people here would have thought twice about entering into and buying many of their financial products!

Sweeping generalisation there - I do, in fact I make a point of it more than once.

There are poor practitioners in every walk of life. I'm sure you wouldn't like me to tar you with the same brush as those in yours, whatever it is, or might have been.

I haven't argued that NR shouldn't fulfil their obligations, or extend them if it turns out they are at further fault. Where people have been genuinely mis-sold then it is only right that amends are made. However, as with PPI, there are many people who cry "mis-selling" where actually they haven't been, they have failed in their responsibilties in the first case by borrowing money they can't afford, or not considering the consequences of these actions, and then try to offload their responsibilities, or get out of paying what they owe for spurious reasons. However, in this case, it is everyone else that will have to pay for it.

claret_mike

GhIFA wrote: »

I haven't argued that NR shouldn't fulfil their obligations, or extend them if it turns out they are at further fault. Where people have been genuinely mis-sold then it is only right that amends are made. However, as with PPI, there are many people who cry "mis-selling" where actually they haven't been, they have failed in their responsibilties in the first case by borrowing money they can't afford, or not considering the consequences of these actions, and then try to offload their responsibilities, or get out of paying what they owe for spurious reasons. However, in this case, it is everyone else that will have to pay for it.

I'm speechless at this little gem..

PPI was generally taken knowingly by customers with the fact that they were told it was the responsible thing to do where income is affected by reasons outside their control.

Your take on it is that they should never have taken the loan out in the first place because it was not affordable?

Whilst conscious of going off at a tangent here on this thread - seriously, you see absolutely no evidence/reason why lenders/sales staff were at fault for mis-selling.

Once again, another example of the industry getting it so far wrong and just looking at bottom line figures rather than actually considering whether the product was suitable or not. Allowing sales cultures to be encouraged to sell the product through incentive schemes which made it more beneficial to do the sale rather than the right thing.

Beggars belief.. Have you not read the recent guidance papers on financial incentive schemes - there is a lot of reference to that.

Seriously I am not being personal here but some of the things you are saying smack of having absolutely no thought behind it.

GhIFA

claret_mike wrote: »

I'm speechless at this little gem..

PPI was generally taken knowingly by customers with the fact that they were told it was the responsible thing to do where income is affected by reasons outside their control.

Your take on it is that they should never have taken the loan out in the first place because it was not affordable?

Whilst conscious of going off at a tangent here on this thread - seriously, you see absolutely no evidence/reason why lenders/sales staff were at fault for mis-selling.

Once again, another example of the industry getting it so far wrong and just looking at bottom line figures rather than actually considering whether the product was suitable or not. Allowing sales cultures to be encouraged to sell the product through incentive schemes which made it more beneficial to do the sale rather than the right thing.

Beggars belief.. Have you not read the recent guidance papers on financial incentive schemes - there is a lot of reference to that.

Seriously I am not being personal here but some of the things you are saying smack of having absolutely no thought behind it.

Mike, I have posted a reply on the other thread. Actually, I do think about what I say. I have never said that industry is not at fault, I clearly say that where mis-selling occurs it needs to be put right. And, there have been bad practices in the past, but equally there have been people who have entered into arrangements they shouldn't have done, because they haven't taken any responsibility to consider things themselves, who then think it must be someone else's fault and someone else must pay - Happens in all walks of life.

As I said elsewhere, there is no need for me to keep restating my opinions so am withdrawing from this discussion. No need for it to descend in to an argument and given your assertion that your comments have not been personal so far or have been tongue in cheek, they are getting that way, and there's no point in that just because I happen to disagree with yours or others thinking just because I feel some of it is flawed.

e.scrooge

claret_mike wrote: »

Post 2 is pretty much what I am saying.

If they are not going to apply a fairness rule in that they led people to believe that they were protected when they were not then action needs to be taken as the product was not as described - i.e. mis-sold.

Up to now it could have been argued that no financial loss or detriment had occurred on the basis that we have been afforded the same administration of the loans as CCA regulated loans (regular statements and even letters explaining that they have to send separate copies to joint borrowers etc) so in that sense there could be a valid argument that no loss has been suffered previously.

I am hopeful that now this has come to light and the topic is more in the public light, someone will have the common sense to say we have to make a decision on this and that my viewpoint will be concurred by the powers that be.

PPI mis-selling, Endowment mis-selling have all been about putting the customer back in the position before the error/issue occurred. I see this as no different.

So, for me, if NR say they will give equal protection to the CCA standard on loans over 25k that would be the end of it.

If they do not then I am not being afforded the protection the paperwork from NR said they were giving me and in my view the loan was mis-sold.

Agreed that up to now we have not been treated differently from those afforded CCA protection but if things proceed as NRAM say they will on their website then anyone with a loan over 25k will suffer significant loss.

I am also hopeful that a sensible decision will eventually be made but I cannot believe that NRAM didn't know what paperwork customers with loans over 25k had been given before they made their announcement. In which case I can only conclude that they calculated they would get away with it. This will only change because pressure to do "the right thing" is applied by their key stakeholder (treasury) or because of a successful legal challenge.

So, as many people as possible should write to treasury, their MPs and the press as well as NRAM. When they do so they should keep the arguments simple.

What we are asking NRAM is: Give us the protection you told us we had or accept that the loans weren't as described and mis-sold.

rmart

yumphla wrote: »

Took out a Together Mortgage in 2005, with unsecured element. Got a letter yesterday from NRAM saying I may be entitled to redress. Checked statement from Oct 11, and unsecured element was still over 26k, so obviously (maybe not???) original loan was for over 25k. Can't find original paperwork. Thought I wouldn't get a letter if amount of loan was over 25k; or does the fact I got this letter stating that they are looking into it, and that only loans under 25k are covered mean that I am automatically ruled out, if original loan was for over 25k??? Confused

Thanks for this, so now we have someone with a loan over £25k who has received the letter and has therefore been offered the same CCA protection as those with a loan under £25k.

They cannot do that for one and not the others. Very interesting.

Fizzy_Fish

Some more interesting news - I just received my annual statement from NRAM, and it looks like they are continuing to treat my loan as though it is CCA regulated.

The statement has changed format, and although it doesn't show the amount of credit provided, there is a note on the back saying 'This statement does not contain all the information which you are entitled to receive from us about your agreement...[explains how you can request this if needed]...The information which is missing is the amount of credit provided under your fixed-sum agreement'

This note comes under a whole section headed 'The following paragraphs relate to your CCA regulated credit agreement'. Within this are sub-sections about settling your credit agreement early, paying less than the agreed sum, and dispute resolution - which may be the missing text that was mentioned in the original announcements about this issue.

So it's still early days, but coupled with the post above it's starting to look a bit more encouraging for us!

dvr80

Just spoke with NRAM, still no official comment regarding £25k+ loans, only that they're still dealing with the <£25k loans.

They also couldn't tell me whether any letters had been sent out to customers in this position or even if I had been sent one... as the chap I spoke to commented, there's not much point in having the helpline when they can't comment on these things and have to refer people back to the limited info available on their website!

I was looking to redeem my mortgage and move lenders in the next month or so but might hang on for a bit to see where this goes... it would be just my luck for something to come out of this and lose out having moved away from NRAM!

NorthernRockNewbie

Hi, I've just got off the phone with a Journalist from the Mirror whom I made aware of the issue and they should be publishing a small story on it on Tuesday 18th December so I will post a link if it is online.

Here's the heads up...

Apparently their official line to the Mirror is that customers with loans over £25k WILL NOT be afforded CCA protection despite what their contracts might say.

I really think we need to get a Barrister to look at this issue on our behalves. No offence to GhIFA but it is not the opinion of an IFA that matters here since this is a legal issue.

I'm going to follow things up tomorrow once the story has been published to see if we may be able to get a Law Firm to look at this on behalf of all of us and see if they may even do so without charge given that it may give them some free press.

From the work I did looking into this back in 2009, the view of the solicitor I had look at this was that so long as NRAM afforded us the protection of the CCA then everything would be fine.

My work involves a far degree of understanding of certain aspect of UK Law (not finance) and I can not grasp how one party could declare something at the very head of an agreement and not be made to keep to that part of the agreement by a court.

claret_mike

I had a phone call from another national media company - which will remain nameless for the time being - I was told that they wanted my permission to pass my details on to a journalist also who is looking into this whole debacle.

When I hear from them, I may be needing further case studies so between us, we should be able to get NRAM to make clear the situation and see where that takes us.

I think that the minute they do not afford us CCA protection then we can argue that they have misrepresented the loan to us. I think it's bang out of order that someone there cannot make a decision on the £25k plus cases...

Rainbow0679

Hello. My husband and I had a together mortgage with an unsecured loan over £25k taken out in sept 2006. I have some paperwork saying the loan is covered by a consumer credit agreement. Phoned nram a few times and they had no information only that letters were sent to affect people last thursday. However when challenged the chap said I would hear by the end of january if we are affected.

From the research I've been doing today on the CCA it would appear the CCA 1974 covered loans of £25k or less but this limit was removed in the CCA 2006 which may suggest ours is covered.

We delinked our loan from the mortgage in august 2008 and are now paying 12% interest and this increase to the interest rate may qualify as a variation to the existing loan which may bring it within the CCA 2008 rules i believe.

It is definitely not clear cut and worth pursuing I think.

Will be interested to see the news article tomorrow.